Protestants Are Infallible!

[Gilbert_Keith]

Our Protestant friends ought not to complain about the Catholic notion of papal infallibility. They practice it themselves all the time. The difference is that every Protestant calls *himself *infallible. Now you will never hear him admit it, but if he did not believe it, he would have to say from time to time, “I might be wrong.”

Has anyone ever heard a Protestant make such an admission?

The only time I ever hear one admit it is when he shops around for a different Protestant church (where he will adopt another stance of infallibility for himself) or just before he chooses to enter the Catholic Church (where he will finally resign himself to the one and changeless infallibility of Rome).

Catholic or Protestant, one cannot escape being an infallibilist.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Gilbert Keith:

Our Protestant friends ought not to complain about the Catholic notion of papal infallibility. They practice it themselves all the time. The difference is that every Protestant call *himself *infallible. Now you will never hear him admit it, but if he did not believe it, he would have to say from time to time, “I might be wrong.”

Has anyone ever heard a Protestant make such an admission?

The only time I ever hear one admit it is when he shops around for a different Protestant church (where he will adopt another stance of infallibility for himself) or just before he chooses to enter the Catholic Church (where he will finally resign himself to the one and changeless infallibility of Rome).

Catholic or Protestant, one cannot escape being an infalliblist.

I might be wrong. I’ve read the Scriptures and the commentaries and come up with different interpretations or opinions on a certain subject from other protestants and Catholics. I could be wrong - I could be right. In the end I will have to answer for my own soul and no one elses. I am more than willing to be judged for my beliefs and actions - knowing that I did my best and could only agree and practice what my CONSCIENCE allowed.

in·fal·li·ble %between%
adj. **1. **Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
**2. **Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
**3. **Roman Catholic Church Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.

Now, I believe man is totally depraved - unable to be perfect - like Christ in this human body. Therefore, neither I nor you nor any human being or institution is infallible.

Peace…

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ahimsaman

I might be wrong. I’ve read the Scriptures and the commentaries and come up with different interpretations or opinions on a certain subject from other protestants and Catholics. I could be wrong - I could be right.

Well, of course there are gray areas provided for in all religions where one’s own opinion is as “might be right or wrong” as anyone else’s. I think what I had in mind was those areas that define a religion as distinguishable from any other religion. The Baptists do believe some things that are different from what other Protestants and Catholics believe. They would not be Baptists if they didn’t. But they must be certain of what they believe, or why would they bother to believe it and go to the wall for it?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ahimsaman

Now, I believe man is totally depraved - unable to be perfect - like Christ in this human body. Therefore, neither I nor you nor any human being or institution is infallible.

To be totally depraved is not the same as to be unable to be perfect.

If Christ said the gates of hell would not be able to prevail against his Church, wouldn’t this mean that the Father of Lies would not be able to take over the Church and teach false doctrines?

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

Therefore, neither I nor you nor any human being or institution is infallible.

If Christ is infallible, then surely His Church is also.

 

[ILO]

Therefore, neither I nor you nor any human being or institution is infallible.

You are absolutely right. No human institution is infallible. But Christ said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. That’s why He gave us the Catholic Church as a Divine Institution. (The Church cannot be just the body of believers because we are human and thus fallible.)

ILO

 

[ahimsaman72]

Gilbert Keith:

ahimsaman

Now, I believe man is totally depraved - unable to be perfect - like Christ in this human body. Therefore, neither I nor you nor any human being or institution is infallible.

To be totally depraved is not the same as to be unable to be perfect.

If Christ said the gates of hell would not be able to prevail against his Church, wouldn’t this mean that the Father of Lies would not be able to take over the Church and teach false doctrines?

depravity does speak of morality - not intelligence, correct. But it does come to play in infallibility. Infallibility is “without error” in regards to faith and morals. Well, this where depravity comes in. I believe every person on earth is not perfect - even if someone speaks “ex-cathedra”. We are morally incapable of being right on all moral issues all the time - pope or not.

See, I take that passage of Scripture to mean something different than what you do. There are a couple of ways to interpret it. I would interpret it as: The “gates of hell”=death and “his church” is all believers in all ages - regardless of affiliation. So, then you have this: Christ said that death will not overcome his believing people (and how is that? because Christ rose from the dead and conquered death for us so that we can live eternally with him).

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Gilbert Keith:

ahimsaman

I might be wrong. I’ve read the Scriptures and the commentaries and come up with different interpretations or opinions on a certain subject from other protestants and Catholics. I could be wrong - I could be right.

Well, of course there are gray areas provided for in all religions where one’s own opinion is as “might be right or wrong” as anyone else’s. I think what I had in mind was those areas that define a religion as distinguishable from any other religion. The Baptists do believe some things that are different from what other Protestants and Catholics believe. They would not be Baptists if they didn’t. But they must be certain of what they believe, or why would they bother to believe it and go to the wall for it?

Though I am certain of my belief regarding baptism I would not die for such a belief. There is the possiblity that I am wrong. However, given my understanding I believe I am right. That’s why I’m a Baptist - as you pointed out. I couldn’t be a Catholic and hold that belief. It’s just one of the reasons why I’m not something else.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

If Christ is infallible, then surely His Church is also.

Hey Mickey!!

Yes, but then we have to define who the church is…is it an institution of brick and mortar or is it the believers inside - regardless of the name on the front lawn?

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

ILO:

You are absolutely right. No human institution is infallible. But Christ said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. That’s why He gave us the Catholic Church as a Divine Institution. (The Church cannot be just the body of believers because we are human and thus fallible.)

ILO

Please see post #7…thanks.

Peace…

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

See, I take that passage of Scripture to mean something different than what you do. There are a couple of ways to interpret it. I would interpret it as: The “gates of hell”=death and “his church” is all believers in all ages - regardless of affiliation. So, then you have this: Christ said that death will not overcome his believing people (and how is that? because Christ rose from the dead and conquered death for us so that we can live eternally with him).

Where do you get this interpretation?
**
*“This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her.”

Saint Augustine of Hippo… Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6:14, Jurgens 1535, 395 A.D. *

 

[ILO]

I take that passage of Scripture to mean something different than what you do. There are a couple of ways to interpret it.

Which is exactly why we need an infallible interpreter.

In response to your post #9, we do NOT say the Church is a building of brick of mortar (although some buildings of brick and mortar are properly called churches). Although the body of believers is in a sense, the Church, we individually or as a collection of people are not infallible. So something else is needed–the Magisterium.

I would interpret it as: The “gates of hell”=death and “his church” is all believers in all ages - regardless of affiliation.

By what justification do you interpret “gates of hell” to equal death? If we can all interpret anything anyway we want to, we have no foundation at all.

ILO

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

Hey Mickey!!

Yes, but then we have to define who the church is…is it an institution of brick and mortar or is it the believers inside - regardless of the name on the front lawn?

Peace…

Hi ahimsaman72! :tiphat:

Sacred Tradition has always taught an invisible and visible Church. Many protestants reject the visible one.

Blessings to you,
Mickey

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ahimsaman

*Though I am certain of my belief regarding baptism I would not die for such a belief. *

Bertrand Russell used to say the same thing about his beliefs, which were not the least bit religious…

So are there any of your beliefs that you would die for, as the early Christian martrys died for theirs?

What would they be?

 

[JimO]

If someone is relying on their own individual interpretation and understanding of Scripture, and they realize that their interpretation might be wrong, how can one have assurance of salvation?

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

Though I am certain of my belief regarding baptism I would not die for such a belief. There is the possiblity that I am wrong. However, given my understanding I believe I am right. That’s why I’m a Baptist - as you pointed out. I couldn’t be a Catholic and hold that belief. It’s just one of the reasons why I’m not something else.

Peace…

I have many baptist friends. And although I love them dearly, I believe their interpreations on many things are odd. The baptist belief of “believer’s baptism” is the mainstay of baptist tradition. Many baptists **would **die for such a belief. I will not try to convince you to re-think “believer’s baptism”–It’s highly unlikely that I could.
But the following article from an Orthodox site is worth reading.
goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7067.asp

Peace to you,
Mickey

 

[Ahimsa]

What do you fellows mean when you ask “But would youdie for a belief”?

If I believe in X with all of my heart and soul, and someone says “I will kill you if you tell me that you believe in X,” am I required to tell him my true beliefs and die?

If I believe the sky is blue, and if some insane person wants to kill people who believe that the sky is blue, then am I going to give him that opportunity?

If I were Christian, say, Baptist, would I be willing to die for my belief in “believer’s baptism”? Or would I save my potential for martyrdom for something more pan-Christian, like my belief in Jesus as savior?

 

[Mickey]

Ahimsa:

If I were Christian, say, Baptist, would I be willing to die for my belief in “believer’s baptism”? Or would I save my potential for martyrdom for something more pan-Christian, like my belief in Jesus as savior?

Isn’t it kind of intertwined? What if I say, " I believe in baptism for the remission of sins, the reception of the Holy Spirit, and my salvation."

An evil pagan might say, “Aha. That means you believe in Jesus as your Savior.” And then they would kill me.

Now a baptist does not believe that baptism is for the reception of the Holy Spirit, the remission of sins, or for the first step in the lifelong process of salvation. They believe it is merely symbolic. But they are Christians.

And so I can see where a Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, etc would die for their belief in baptism–but would a baptist, brethren, mennonite, non-denom, etc be willing to die for their belief in baptism?

Am I making any sense here?

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

Where do you get this interpretation?
**
*“This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her.” *
**
**Saint Augustine of Hippo… Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6:14, Jurgens 1535, 395 A.D.

I’ve given a lot of study to the word “hell” in both its OT and NT usage. The greek word used for hell in the verse - “the gates of hell shall not prevail…” is the word “hades” which literally means “the underworld” - the place of death. Here is the excerpt from Strong’s Concordance:

*1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions *

*2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead *3) later use of this word: the grave, death, hell

++++
In Biblical Greek it is associated with Orcus, the infernal regions, a dark and dismal place in the very depths of the earth, the common receptacle of disembodied spirits. Usually Hades is just the abode of the wicked, Lu. 16:23, Rev. 20:13,14; a very uncomfortable place. TDNT.

So, given the usage in Scripture it is rightful to use “death” in the place of “hell” because “death”, “hell” and “the grave” are synonymous.

You will remember that Christ went to “hell” when He died. Which “hell” did He go to? The one that burns with fire and brimstone or the one that is “the place of the dead”? The problem with using the word “hell” to replace three different Greek words is endless. Hell is translated from the words “gehenna”, “hades”, “tartarus”.

It only makes sense that there is a “gate” in reference to “the place of the dead”. What do you see in a cemetary? A gate leading into the “place of the dead”.

So, given the usage of the word and its context, it is rightful for me to conclude that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” could be viewed as "the gates (the barrier, protecting feature) of hell (the place of the dead - the grave) shall not prevail over the believer for one terrific reason - Christ himself went to hell (remember the Apostles Creed, not to mention Scripture) and was delivered over it. Just as Christ went to hell and was raised to life, so will all His children not stay in the grave. We will all be resurrected.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

ILO:

Which is exactly why we need an infallible interpreter.

In response to your post #9, we do NOT say the Church is a building of brick of mortar (although some buildings of brick and mortar are properly called churches). Although the body of believers is in a sense, the Church, we individually or as a collection of people are not infallible. So something else is needed–the Magisterium.

By what justification do you interpret “gates of hell” to equal death? If we can all interpret anything anyway we want to, we have no foundation at all.

ILO

please see post #19, thanks…