Is infallible knowledge of the Canon possible

[DeFide]

So Catholics, how do you move from fallibility to infallible knowledge of things such as the canon?

I hope you got a chance to read the link I posted.

I think behind your question is really the exasperated question; “So what if Sola Scriptura doesn’t give any final answers, what is the point or benefit of an infallible teaching church if people can misapprehend?”

It’s of great benefit to have a thinking, decision-making authority from which a decision can be had. If two people are accusing each other of heresy, they can ultimately appeal to an infallible church that can tell them point blank who is right, or if they’re both wrong.

Sure, a crazy person or someone with a severe impediment might not understand, but in almost all cases, people who sincerely seek can get a final, definitive answer.

If you say that somehow that isn’t good enough, you’re really telling Jesus that it isn’t good enough when he said:

. If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).

 

[Subrosa]

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.

The one issue with your statement that shows misunderstanding is this - Christ DID NOT leave this to only ONE Bishop. He left it to His whole church, of which the Bishop of Rome has a special place. Read John 21:15-19. Jesus gives special ministry to Peter. Then read Acts 15. What position does Peter have at the council? Read especially vs.19.

Yes, they are called metaphors.

Here is where the Protestant and Catholic theologies differ. In Catholicism these ARE NOT METAPHORS. The Holy Spirit and Jesus are present and active according to WHAT HE PROMISED. He did not lie.

An example of this understanding is found again in Acts chapter 15. Here the story of the Council of Jerusalem is told. The whole church at that time met to decide issues that were raised concerning Jewish law and Gentiles. The story relates what happened and the outcome.

What happened is this…Acts 15:22 “Then the Apostles and presbyters, in agreement with THE WHOLE CHURCH, decided to choose…” Vs.28 “It is the decision of the HOLY SPIRIT and of US not to place any burden beyond necessities…”

Look at who was deciding and look at who took part in that decision. The WHOLE CHURCH and the HOLY SPIRIT. They did not consult any scripture.The decision was and still is infallable.

Now, can you explain something to me? Why is it that Protestants insist on saying the the scripture must only be read literally, but when something comes along when read literally supports Catholic doctrine, it suddenly becomes metaphor?

Subrosa

 

[Subrosa]

Hi again Sola -

Whose position of the canon is the most consistent? I would argue that my position is and the Catholic position is illogical.

Is this the question you speak of?

If so please point out one or more Catholic inconsistancies.

Subrosa

 

[SolaScriptura]

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?

Nope, I don’t. I have faith and the evidence confirms this faith. If I had infallible knowledge I wouldn’t need faith.

Do you have infallible knowledge of who God is? Do you have infallible knowledge of that Catholicism is the one and only true chruch? Do you have infallible knowledge of the books of the canon?

Please answer each question.

 

[alexaustralia]

Hi Sola,

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?

Does that mean you accept the Koran and BoM as inspired because the books say so? Wouldn’t then you have to declare that it takes more than a book stating “I’m inspired” for it to be actually inspired? Wouldn’t you agree that more is required?

However, we do have a precedent under the Old Covenant of how this was done and was through Scriptures.

Although I disagree with this, using same phrasing:
However, we have a precedent under the New Covenant of how this was done and was through the Church…prove the above wrong from historical accounts especially from Councils and ECF writings.

To the question,Could God had protected the Church through other means than infallibility? Maybe yes maybe no, who knows.
Did God none the less decided to give the Church this gift even though other options may have been available?..Definitely YES!

 

[SolaScriptura]

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

Nearly? Also if you count the members of Catholicism who don’t even accept the teaching it is probably not as nearly as you insinuate.

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.

Oh, I’m very familiar with that argument. It seems like you are missing the point of the discussion. We are not so much debating how the church arrives at the canon, but how you have infallible knowledge the canon is correct. A string of fallible historical investigations cannot suddenly jump to infallibility. The reason being is that you could have been wrong on any item in the fallible list.

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

We’ve been through this before, but here we go again.

1. It is historically accurate

Historically accurate doesn’t mean infallible. Furthermore, your understanding of historically accurate source is still fallible. Right out the gate you have lost the claim for infallible certainty.

1. Therefore, what the bible records must be taken seriously

Yeah, there are a lot of works that are taken seriously, but they contain error and more importantly your understanding of what they are teaching is fallible. Strike two.

1. The Bible says that a historical figured named Jesus established a church

Yes, it does.

1. This church claimed that Jesus is God.

Yeah, I agree, but many disagree. This demonstrates the point of fallibility even in interpreting something that is infallible.

1. This claim can be demonstrated to be true.

For some, but not all. Fortunately, I’m one that has been convinced.

1. Therefore, all statements by Jesus as God must be true.

I would agree, but this is not infallible certainty. This is fallible certainty and it maybe inerrant, but not infallible.

1. One statement in the historically accurate bible is that He would establish a church and lead it into all truth.

Where is that statement? See your fallibility is made manifest even at this simple point. He promised he would lead the Apostles into all truth, not the church per se.

1. 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.

The church could do all of this without error, without the gift of infallibility. Furthermore, this says nothing about your knowledge of this being infallible.

 

[SolaScriptura]

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.

You maybe familiar with them but it doesn’t seem like you have really thought through all the implications. One can believe all the above, but it is still a fallible belief of yours.

SolaScriptura:

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.

A cult using a Scriptural principle does not invalidate its truthfulness.

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.

Yeah, but I don’t believe you can prove your church is infallible so you are in the same boat. Your infallible officially came on the scene in the 20th … err … I mean 19th century. There’s came on the scene with Joseph Smith. Actually it was right about the same time.

Their argument fails at step #1 above.

Not necessarily. Historically accurate doesn’t mean free of all errors.

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”.

Actually, I go to number #7, but I have remove your erroneous statement about him leading the church into all truth. This was promised to the Apostles.

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.”

Actually it works very nicely, because if he lead the Apostles into all truths then whatever they wrote and the works they approved of are therefore true.

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.

LOL!! Admit to it? OK, show it to me.

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)

Assertions R Us!

 

[DeFide]

…
A cult using a Scriptural principle does not invalidate its truthfulness.

I guess that means you’re affirming the truthfulness of Mormonism?

I’d also like the book, chapter & verse of the “scriptural principle” that says you can determine the inspiration of writings based on feelings.

Yeah, but I don’t believe you can prove your church is infallible so you are in the same boat. Your infallible officially came on the scene in the 20th … err … I mean 19th century. There’s came on the scene with Joseph Smith. Actually it was right about the same time.

I think you’d affirm the infallibility of Peter when he wrote 1 & 2 Peter.

Actually, I go to number #7, but I have remove your erroneous statement about him leading the church into all truth. This was promised to the Apostles.

The authoritative Church Jesus referred to in Mt18:15ff did not go away!

Ephesians 3:20-21:

‘Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to **him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.’ **

This Church that St. Paul is describing in Ephesians will be here to all generations (pasas tas geneas, ‘all the generations’) forever and ever. This eliminates the possibility of apostasy for even one generation!"

Actually it works very nicely, because if he lead the Apostles into all truths then whatever they wrote and the works they approved of are therefore true.

The Apostles were the authority in the early Church? Don’t look now, but you just denied Sola Scriptura. And the apostles couldn’t have taught Sola Scriptura in the Bible, otherwise they’d undermine their own authority. I guess it must be a non-Biblical tradition of men that nullifies the word of God.

“[there are] certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:16

 

[Subrosa]

Nope, I don’t. I have faith and the evidence confirms this faith. If I had infallible knowledge I wouldn’t need faith.

Do you have infallible knowledge of who God is? Do you have infallible knowledge of that Catholicism is the one and only true chruch? Do you have infallible knowledge of the books of the canon?

Please answer each question.

Hi there Sola! -

Do you have infallible knowledge of who God is?

God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Holy Trinity infallably defined at the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

Do you have infallible knowledge of that Catholicism is the one and only true chruch?

This is a trick question. I will give you that some people will say that the Catholic Church is the one true church. The statement comes from ignorance. What is fact is that the founder of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. When I say that I include all churches that trace thier founding to the Apostles, the proper ministers of Christ who obeyed His command “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations…” There are no Reformation churches that can make that claim.

Do you have infallible knowledge of the books of the canon?

What I have is Tradition. The Catholic Church has held from the beginning that the Old Testament books we use today are the very same used by the very first evangelists.

The New Testament is a different matter. The process of sorting out which books should be accepted into the canon took over a century. There were literally a hundred books considered. Here is an article concerning the choosing of the books.
ntgreek.org/SeminaryPapers/ChurchHistory/Criteria%20for%20Development%20of%20the%20NT%20Canon%20in%20First%20Four%20Centuries.pdf

Also, I think you’re getting off track here. Infallability is reserved for only two sets of teachings: faith and morals. Of all the things you mentioned above only the first is an infallable teaching.

I am curious, do you agree with the teaching on Trinity or not?

Subrosa

 

[KindredSoul]

Whose position of the canon is the most consistent? I would argue that my position is and the Catholic position is illogical. I believe we as fallible humans cannot have infallible knowledge of anything unless we are inspired of God. We have faith and trust in God’s promises, but faith is not based on infallible knowledge.

Catholics often claim Protestants need an infallible church so we can have infallible knowledge of the canon. But there is a big problem. How can fallible Catholics relying on their own fallible knowledge to sift through all the competing claims by churches. Sift through the Scriptures and sift through all the competing historical voices have infallible knowledge of anything? They would need to be individual infallible in order to guarantee any thing they believe is infallible. So Catholics, how do you move from fallibility to infallible knowledge of things such as the canon?

First, you must realize that the premise that a fallible human cannot come to possess infallible knowledge is a false premise.

In truth infallible knowledge can be passed to a fallible human being accurately and perfectly if it comes, in plain, universally unambiguous language, from an infallible source. For instance, even Protestants can have an infallible knowledge that “Jesus wept” once upon a time, because the meaning of that short passage is 100% clear and there’s no room for dispute (unfortunately, much of the Bible isn’t nearly so clear and unambiguous).

That’s where Catholics have an advantage. If any part of scripture can be taken to mean a variety of contradictory claims (which is evident from the countless denominations of Protestantism which claim that the Bible says different, contradictory doctrinal claims) then Protestants, whose faith states that the Bible alone is infallible, have no way of coming to infallible knowledge about what the Bible is saying; the Bible cannot verbally speak and say “Excuse me, but chapter X, Verse X actually happens to mean…(insert truth here)…”. However, the Pope and Magesterium, who are indeed infallible (and they can tell us fallible individual Catholics as much in plain, up-to-date language if there’s any confusion) can tell us the Truth about canon and everything else that they’ve interpretted infallibly, and they can tell us plainly in terms that any intelligent human being, fallible or otherwise, can understand. Catholics, and even Protestants, have access to this plain truth: Though some “Cafeteria Catholics”, and certainly all Protestants, may not agree with all the Church’s teachings, very very rarely does anyone, even an Atheist, fail to understand what those teachings are after extensive research, and the fruit of that understanding is a universal agreement (among the informed) about what the Catholic Church teaches even among those who don’t like or believe what She teaches. The Bible, when used in a sola scriptura context, enjoys no such consensus among even one congregation, let alone when people of other religions come into the mix and throw their two cents in.

Thus the bottom line is this: A fallible human being can know something infallibly if an infallible source makes it known plainly in a way that no one of reasonable intelligence will misunderstand, assuming they’ve heard the argument/point fully presented. The Catholic Church has such a source in the Pope and Magesterium, who have confirmed the Canon and have done so plainly, hence giving fallible, everyday Catholics the benefit of an infallible certainty.

 

[porthos11]

Yeah and no one at these councils thought they were operating under any gift of infallibility. As a matter of fact your church agrees with that. However, that is not even the real issue at hand. The real issue is do the individual Catholic have infallible certainty about the canon.

Yes. In fact, the only time the Church invoked infallibility with regards to the canon was at Trent in the 16th century. But one must remember that infallibility is rarely invoked, and only when necessary.

You never answered the question. This thread is not about the inspiration of the Scriptures, but about the individual Catholic having infallible certainty of the canon.

Ah, clearer now. But the other posters have indicated so. The individual Catholic does not have an infallible certainty of the canon, and neither does he need or want it. We accept the canon on the Church’s infallibility, not the individual’s.

Since you do not require proof of the New Testament’s inspiration, we can accept the fact that Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (2 Tim 3:15). The pillar and foundation of the truth must be one on which the truth is built and supported. This is not possible unless this pillar and foundation is protected, otherwise, it’s not worth much as a pillar and foundation; the building will collapse, and the truth will be corrupted. But if this were to happen, the gates of hell would have prevailed and Christ’s promise will have failed. Of course, you, as a devout Christian don’t believe that.

So all we know is this. The Church is infallible in matters of faith, including the Scriptures. Now the average Catholic doesn’t have to be infallible to know this, just as we don’t need to be infallible to know that God exists, or that Jesus is man; yet the Church has infallibly defined these as truth and all true Christians accept them (even if they don’t recognize the infallibility behind it).

Infallibility is only needed when reason no longer suffices (that’s why the Church doesn’t invoke infallibility where reason can sufficiently explain). From reason alone (and the acceptance the NT’s textual and historical accuracy, which is not in dispute between us), we can deduce that the Church is infallible in the truth. Since reason alone cannot deduce the canon of scripture, we need the definition this matter of faith, and our reason then trusts the Church’s infallibility in this case.

Therefore, if anyone errs with regards to the canon, then the error lies with the individual, and not the Church.

 

[porthos11]

lible.

Where is that statement? See your fallibility is made manifest even at this simple point. He promised he would lead the Apostles into all truth, not the church per se.

Actually, there is no conflict here because of our ecclesiology. Scripture tells us that the Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20) with Christ as the capstone. Similar imagery is used in Revelation. While it can point to the local church, the fact that the singular “household” and the global imagery of Revelation does indicate that the universal Church is also built on the foundations of the Apostles and Christ.

Paul here is clearly showing that the Apostles’ teachings will indeed be the basis for the Church, and he does not neglect to leave out Christ (just as he promised). From Paul’s writings, the Apostles were indeed led into all truth, but the truth would never die with them, and will be protected by the Church (2 Tim 3:15), since the Apostles would not live forever.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Actually, there is no conflict here because of our ecclesiology. Scripture tells us that the Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20) with Christ as the capstone. Similar imagery is used in Revelation. While it can point to the local church, the fact that the singular “household” and the global imagery of Revelation does indicate that the universal Church is also built on the foundations of the Apostles and Christ.

Yes, it is the foundation that is infallible. It says nothing about you cannot put error on top of that foundation.

Paul here is clearly showing that the Apostles’ teachings will indeed be the basis for the Church, and he does not neglect to leave out Christ (just as he promised). From Paul’s writings, the Apostles were indeed led into all truth, but the truth would never die with them, and will be protected by the Church (2 Tim 3:15), since the Apostles would not live forever.

Do you guys understand what non sequiturs are, because you constantly make them. Even if the church is the protector of the truth it doesn’t follow that the same church is therefore infallible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Two thoughts.

First:

Historically accurate doesn’t mean infallible. Furthermore, your understanding of historically accurate source is still fallible. Right out the gate you have lost the claim for infallible certainty.

I have not asked or claimed infallibility at this point; we have to determine that Jesus is God first.

Yeah, there are a lot of works that are taken seriously, but they contain error and more importantly your understanding of what they are teaching is fallible. Strike two.

There is no strike here since all we have done is to show that the Bible is historically accurate and that it can be relied upon to speak accurately about historic events. Nothing more. Josh McDowell is with me on this.

We’re good on steps 3, 4, 5, & 6.

Where is that statement? See your fallibility is made manifest even at this simple point. He promised he would lead the Apostles into all truth, not the church per se.

You make my point.

Jesus did say that he would lead the leaders of the Church into all truth. He never said that he would lead the rest of us into all truth.

1. Jesus promised to lead the Apostles, the leaders of the Church, into all truth. This is Apostolic Authority and Infallibility all rolled into one. Exellent!
2. Jesus did not promise to lead “the Church” (and here you define Church as the body of all true believers, right?) into all truth. This is the death of sola scriptura. It was still-born, anyway.

Therefore, all that is left is for you to grasp Apostolic Succession, and behold, a new Catholic!

My work in this thread is done! :dancing:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yeah, but I don’t believe you can prove your church is infallible so you are in the same boat. Your infallible officially came on the scene in the 20th … err … I mean 19th century. There’s came on the scene with Joseph Smith. Actually it was right about the same time.

Once you learn a few basics, you are going to make one heck of a Catholic. Papal infallibility was defined as dogma in 1874. This is distinct from the infallibility of the Magisterium which as such, does not need to defined. It is a given based on scripture.

Not necessarily. Historically accurate doesn’t mean free of all errors.

I stand by my statement that Mormonism fails at step #1. It cannot be proven historically.

Actually, I go to number #7, but I have remove your erroneous statement about him leading the church into all truth. This was promised to the Apostles.

I know you want to go there, and that’s good. But not as a Protestant. You see, Jesus did give Authority to the Apostles (Apostolic Authority) and he promised to send the Spirit to lead them into all truth (Infallibility), and Jesus promised to remain “with you always to the very end of the age.”

How could Jesus remain with the Apostles to the very end of the age if they died? He wasn’t speaking of remaining with them in heaven because there is no end of that. So it is through their successors that He fulfills his promise to be with the leaders of the Church forever! Apostolic Succession.

Actually it works very nicely, because if he lead the Apostles into all truths then whatever they wrote and the works they approved of are therefore true.

Yep.

LOL!! Admit to it? OK, show it to me.

Love to. Follow me to the thread entitled “Apostolic Authority in the Catholic Church”. It’s a couple days old now.

The mod will be unhappy if I divert this thread.

 

[porthos11]

Do you guys understand what non sequiturs are, because you constantly make them. Even if the church is the protector of the truth it doesn’t follow that the same church is therefore infallible.

This isn’t a non sequitur because it can, and in fact, must follow. If the Church weren’t infallible, it cannot be the protector of the truth. There’s nothing immensely theological about it, it’s just plain reason. A fallible protector of the truth is a contradiction in terms, because then, we wouldn’t be able to tell truth from error. If the Church were in fact fallible, and it allowed one error to filter through as official Christian teaching, then it has failed in its mission to protect the truth; has led the faithful into error, and therefore means a failure of the promises of Christ.

Without infallibility, there will be no certain way to know the truth, and again, that would be contrary to promises made to the apostles. Moreover, in addition to the building imagery of the Church, the body imagery is also used in Colossians 1, where Christ is the head of the body, the Church. It makes no sense for Paul to say that Christ is the head, yet is unable or unwilling to protect the Church from error.

No, for the Scripture to make sense of the Church as pillar and foundation of the truth, we need to believe that hell will not prevail, and must trust that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error.

 

[SolaScriptura]

This isn’t a non sequitur because it can, and in fact, must follow. If the Church weren’t infallible, it cannot be the protector of the truth.

Baloney. One could be a protector of the truth and make errors, but they are eventually corrected. There is a huge difference between a protector of the truth and an infallible protector of the truth. Who was the Protector of the truth for the Old Covenant church? Furthermore, here is another example of how it could work. There could be different parts of the church that are in error at certain points in time, but the entire church never falls into error. There are many errors in every church today, Rome included. What is the right view on predestination from Rome’s perspective? Of course you would say Rome hasn’t infallibly ruled on that yet, but nevertheless there is error in her midst. Why hasn’t she protected the infallible truth and ruled on this issue. It is a non sequitur, because to be a protector of the truth does not necessarily mean you have to be infallible.

There’s nothing immensely theological about it, it’s just plain reason. A fallible protector of the truth is a contradiction in terms, because then, we wouldn’t be able to tell truth from error.

This is nonsense. First of all, fallible does not always mean one is wrong. You are under the assumption that if we are fallible we can never get things right. That is fallacious. You even use your fallible interpretation to arrive at the conclusion that Rome is the infallible protector of the truth. How does that make you feel, because based on your logic you have no way of telling truth from error.

If the Church were in fact fallible, and it allowed one error to filter through as official Christian teaching, then it has failed in its mission to protect the truth; has led the faithful into error, and therefore means a failure of the promises of Christ.

The church is full of error. The caveat of “office Christian teaching” is bogus. If it is demanded that the church not have any error in her midst then rule on issues and settle them. The church was in error for years on the Bodily Assumption, Papal Infallibility, and host of other things. Error was in the church’s midst. It was never Christ promise that the church would not have error, it is your fallible and wrong in this case interpretation of Christ. As you said earlier, if you are fallible you can’t tell truth from error so you can never be confident in any conclusion you have reached.

Without infallibility, there will be no certain way to know the truth, and again, that would be contrary to promises made to the apostles.

This statement belies history(i.e. Old Covenant Church) and it basically makes everything you say or believe worthless, because you are not infallible and therefore you have no certain way of knowing the truth.

Moreover, in addition to the building imagery of the Church, the body imagery is also used in Colossians 1, where Christ is the head of the body, the Church. It makes no sense for Paul to say that Christ is the head, yet is unable or unwilling to protect the Church from error.

Who said he was unable or unwilling? People use the same kind of fallacious argument to argue against the existence of God. It goes like this: It makes no sense for there to be a good God and He is sovereign yet allows all this evil. Same kind of argument. Furthermore, God could protect the church from all error without granting infallibility to the church. Do you think God is not capable of doing that?

No, for the Scripture to make sense of the Church as pillar and foundation of the truth, we need to believe that hell will not prevail, and must trust that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error.

A pillar and foundation holds up something. That something is the word of God(the only word of God we have is the Scriptures ), and this is the truth that is infallible and cannot err.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Remember the canon is supposed to be the Catholic great weapon against Protestants. Without an infallible church, the Protestant cannot be infallibly sure what books belong in the canon. Who knows we may have left some out or added a few that don’t belong is often the argument.

However, we have been through pages and pages of responses from our Catholic friends and not one, no not even one, has come close to explaining how they have infallible knowledge of the books of the canon.

They have tried to prove based on their FALLIBLE interpretation of history and the Scriptures that the church is infallible. But based on their own reasoning in reference to our knowing for sure the books of the canon, how can they know for sure with their FALLIBLE interpretation of history and Scripture that they are right about the church?

The make it even worst when they string out a long FALLIBLE 8 step process to determining the church is infallible. Isn’t that ironic?

Instead of wasting all our time with FALLIBLE proofs for their infallible knowledge of something, they need to back up and think for a second. Here is the issue. How do YOU, individual Catholic, move from FALLIBILITY, to infallibility about anything? And please, once you start using your FALLIBLE reasoning to answer, you have already lost

 

[KindredSoul]

Remember the canon is supposed to be the Catholic great weapon against Protestants. Without an infallible church, the Protestant cannot be infallibly sure what books belong in the canon. Who knows we may have left some out or added a few that don’t belong is often the argument.

However, we have been through pages and pages of responses from our Catholic friends and not one, no not even one, has come close to explaining how they have infallible knowledge of the books of the canon.

They have tried to prove based on their FALLIBLE interpretation of history and the Scriptures that the church is infallible. But based on their own reasoning in reference to our knowing for sure the books of the canon, how can they know for sure with their FALLIBLE interpretation of history and Scripture that they are right about the church?

The make it even worst when they string out a long FALLIBLE 8 step process to determining the church is infallible. Isn’t that ironic?

Instead of wasting all our time with FALLIBLE proofs for their infallible knowledge of something, they need to back up and think for a second. Here is the issue. How do YOU, individual Catholic, move from FALLIBILITY, to infallibility about anything? And please, once you start using your FALLIBLE reasoning to answer, you have already lost

Calm down, ye of great patience, and read my post #70, which I don’t think you have. You’ll find that Fallible doesn’t make a person as helpless as you believe it does. Fallible doesn’t mean stupid. If I am infallible and I tell a fallible person that the box in the corner of the room we’re in, that I’m pointing at is white, I have just passed on infallible knowledge. That person knows this infallibly now, it’s just that they were dependent on my infallibility. I’ve told them plainly, and unless they are not only fallible but have a severe mental handicap, they know an infallible truth, and they know it infallibly. Fallible just means that you must have an Infallible source to turn to, one that can spell it out plainly to you. Catholics have that in the Church; the Bible (which Catholics have, of course, just not solely) has not proved as unambiguous and clear when used by itself, hence all the different beliefs (even major ones) among Protestants.

As to address your issue, the infallible Church can tell fallible Catholics plainly what the Canon is…and unless you go with your fallible=stupid definition, which we don’t, a Catholic being told this can thus be sure that his knowledge of the Canon is infallible, though he himself is not. The Bible itself never makes any effort to spell out the Canon, at all. So it’s because of that fact that Catholics have an advantage, and not because everyday Catholics are more infallible than Protestants.

I went a lot more in depth with this on Post #70. I’d appreciate it if you’d read it while keeping this post in mind (this post words it more simply, while 70 is more detailed, so both are useful).

 

[SolaScriptura]

Calm down, ye of great patience, and read my post #70, which I don’t think you have.

I’m counting to 10 … 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 … OK, I’m calm and I’ve read your post #70 and it still fails. I will not respond to your entire post here. I will just point out the obvious flaw immediately.

You’ll find that Fallible doesn’t make a person as helpless as you believe it does. Fallible doesn’t mean stupid.

Oh, I agree. It is the Catholics that keep claiming infallible knowledge is needed, not I.

If I am infallible and I tell a fallible person that the box in the corner of the room we’re in, that I’m pointing at is white, I have just passed on infallible knowledge. That person knows this infallibly now, it’s just that they were dependent on my infallibility. I’ve told them plainly, and unless they are not only fallible but have a severe mental handicap, they know an infallible truth, and they know it infallibly.

Here is the problem with you scenario and I will stop here. If I had infallible knowledge that you were indeed infallible then you are right. However, the problem is, how do I get infallible knowledge that you are infallible? Solve that problem for me without me using fallible reasoning.