Protestants believe in infalliblity of their leaders.

[Gabriel_of_12]

That would be another thread.

However, Luther never removed books from the Bible. He appended the deuteros just like Jerome did. The appended books were later omitted due to printing costs (but not by Jerome) and never put back in.

You need to do your research, because you are making false assertions. To discover the truth you need to actually read what Luther taught instead of simply repeating false accusations.

Ginger

What false accusations, ask any Evangelical what I have repeated here. Here is your argument and this is reality. True it is very simple to argue from Luther’s perspective today and it reveals something totally foreign to all of Protestantism and its splinter groups of Evangelicals and non catholic communities. So to get scholary with me on Martin Luther’s 15th century mindset, does not equate with the reality of today in Protestant and non catholic circles. We cant fit the circle into the square. I say the circle and the square are two different shapes, you appear to be attaching me to this impossible equation, that no one could ever challenge then trying to equate this impossiblity to my knowledge of a heresy.

Please dont argue reasoning from the first Martin Luther introduction to his newly invented teachings of “Sola theology” from what has resulted from his orginal teachings. I would agree most of Protestantism does not agree with Martin Luthers teachings, although they hold to his famous theories “Sola fide” and “Sola Scriptura” but these new chrisitian splinter groups hold to the same wording as Martin Luther but not the same teaching.

If your trying to make me out as an uniformed, It appears your the one out of touch with reality? You are not going to find original teachings being taught as Maritn Luther, if you did, Every one would still be going to confession, accepting Mary as Mother of God, and the Eucharist. You cant tell me Protestantism today believes the same way as Martin Luther. Secondly the Pope understands the mind of Luther from the past, and his teachings have changed from their original inception.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That would be another thread.

However, Luther never removed books from the Bible. He appended the deuteros just like Jerome did. The appended books were later omitted due to printing costs (but not by Jerome) and never put back in.

Gabriel of 12:
So your going to say Martin Luther lied again when he called the book of James the book of straw? which conflicted with his new invention “Sola fe”. By what authority did Martin Luther have to insult the Word of God? If that is not some type of infallibility to rename a book of the bible maybe you can discredit my misinformed knowledge of this Lie of Martin Luther. So if these books were not removed as canonical, then why is Protestantism and Evangelicals still Preaching that the Catholic church added these books to the bible? You can attach the word “appended” to argue you stance of his removing books. I will suggest to you, today it is not accepted as this, but as removal, because Martin Luther made himself out to be infallible to argue already Canonized books for the same Jewish argument of no Hebrew counterparts. Martin Luther was no St. Jerome, although Martin Luther made himself out to be better than St.Jerome, because Jerome obeyed the Pope and kept the books in the bible, Martin Luther disobeyed the Pope and protested 1500 years of Catholicism which was the only Christian faith since the resurrection of our dear Lord Jesus.

Ginger:
You need to do your research, because you are making false assertions. To discover the truth you need to actually read what Luther taught instead of simply repeating false accusations.

Ginger

Gabriel of 12:
I know already what Martin Luther believed, Martin Luther was a Catholic first remember. If you think these new “Sola” teachings did not get invented by a man (Martin Luther) who made himself to believe these “Sola” teachings are without error or infallible; without realizing how much these new christian inventions have disrupted the body of Jesus Christ today. We are not on the same page.

As far as false assertions. Explain to me, where did Protestantism and Evangelicals get this new teaching that they teach called “Sola Scriptura” “Sola fide” today? Maybe you can educate me here from my false assertions. If you have the Truth, lets hear it then?

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Wesley didn’t “invent” any new teachings - and died an Anglican priest in good standing. He asked people to revisit their faith and to emphasis personal holiness and sacramental living.

Wesley was a human being and fallible. He believed that the Articles of Religion and the Creeds (Nicene and Apostles’) should be followed and embraced. The “Method” of Methodism wasn’t doctrinal, it was more like the adoption of a rule similar to ordered life.

To say Wesley was without error is ridiculous. All you have to do is look at his marriage to know that. He saw how the Church was not practicing it’s own faith and sought to draw people back to it, methodically and with intention.

Gabriel of 12;
So if your founder John Wesley invented a new method to draw people back to God, and overruled Jesus’s and his apostles teachings on how one is to enter the Kingdom of God? Why are people following Methodist teachings today if they dont believe these Method’s to be without error? If they are not doctrines then why not just remain Roman Catholic? where the apostolic teachings are held to our confession of faith defended and taught as infallible or without error today?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel as any true Christian the authority I turn to is the scriptures. Are the scripture infallible, yes.
Do they need a higher authority to interpret them, No.

Hey Hisalone, Ginger above does not agree that your authority of scripture comes from Martin Luther, do you agree with her, that “Sola Scripture” was not invented by Martin Luther?

So this quote of yours coming from an Evangelical point of view; Is your opinion here infallible or does it error? In other words do you proclaim your self of what you stated above to be infallible teaching? or does this statement of belief of yours is vulnerable to error?

How do you know what you preach in your church is infallible or without error?

 

[Ginger2]

What false accusations,

1 Sola Fida: Luther explained, in the German language the word “only” needed to be added for clarity and didn’t mean “faith only” is required.

On the contrary I can easily slide my circle in your square, you are the one struggling to fit your square of misinformation into my factual circle.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Gabriel of 12:
Explain to me, where did Protestantism and Evangelicals get this new teaching that they teach called “Sola Scriptura” “Sola fide” today? Maybe you can educate me here from my false assertions. If you have the Truth, lets hear it then?

1. Catholics came up with a definition of Sola Scriptura which is a false doctrine - “all knowledge is contained in the Holy Scriptures”.

If we use this Catholic definition both Protestants and Catholics agree SS is a false doctrine.

However, that is not how Protestants define Sola Scriptura.

To the Protestant it means the Holy Scriptures are the Written Word of God and thus our “rule of faith”.

The Apostles affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scriptures over the teaching of men.
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

The Apostles were prophets who spoke for God.
Galatians 1:11-12
Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus stated the importance of Christians to depend on the Scriptures and not what men teach:

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The church fathers confirmed it:
What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch 20)

For the Protestant believer SS means:

1. If it is in the Holy Scriptures, I am bound to believe it
2. If it is not in the Scriptures I am not bound to believe if
3. If it contradicts the Holy Scriptures I am bound to reject it

Ginger

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;4867251:

What false accusations,

1 Sola Fida: Luther explained, in the German language the word “only” needed to be added for clarity and didn’t mean “faith only” is required.

The circle and square ananlogy has nothing to do about each others information. It has to do with applying ML’s 15th century mind set of Sola Scriptura with today’s mindset who accredit ML’s teachings of Sola Scriptura from Protestant and Evangelical christians who today hold different doctrines or teachings from the ML’s Sola theories.

Peace

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

1. Catholics came up with a definition of Sola Scriptura which is a false doctrine - “all knowledge is contained in the Holy Scriptures”.

Gabriel of 12:

Can you give me the source of this quote above. Either you have taken it out of context, or it does not exist in the way you are presenting it.

Ginger;
However, that is not how Protestants define Sola Scriptura.

To the Protestant it means the Holy Scriptures are the Written Word of God and thus our “rule of faith”.

Gabriel of 12:
Now that sounds Catholic. So why do Non Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals apply the word “Sola” to their notion of Sola Scriptura. When your "PROTESTANT DEFINITION OF SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD “SOLA”. I sure hope your protestant friends and Evangelicals would take to this, then we are well on our way to unity. Until then you have alot of redifining ML’s Sola theories, not to us Catholics these are heresy, but to Protestants and Evangelicals in general need to understand your new 21st century definition of “Sola Scriptura” from the past.

Ginger;
The Apostles affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scriptures over the teaching of men.
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

The Apostles were prophets who spoke for God.
Galatians 1:11-12
Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus stated the importance of Christians to depend on the Scriptures and not what men teach:

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Gabriel of 12:

Your wasting your time here, for I adhere to these teachings, but never is “Sola” ever mentioned in Aramaic, Greek. or Latin, why German? and English protestants changed theologies here from the apostolic church? What also must be mentioned that you failed to mention on the Church possessing the Bulwark of Truth, and the Apostolic Tradtions that conflict with your opinion of “Sola Scriptura”.

The church fathers confirmed it:
What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, ch 20)

Gabriel of 12:
Is the Tertullian the Catholic or Tertullian the border line Heretic? Notice he has no “St.” to his name. The apostles themselves from the New Testament teaches against “Sola theology” because these limit the power of God, and again the Apostles taught orally and Sacred Tradition before the New Testament letters were completed and compiled by the Catholic church who canonoized the books of the bible not for personal "Sola " interpretations but for Liturgical purposes in the Mass. Luther changed all these apostolic teachings and belief’s.

Dont bring up the early church fathers for all these were 100 % Catholic, not Lutherans for another 1600 years, sorry:shrug:

Ginger;
For the Protestant believer SS means:

1. If it is in the Holy Scriptures, I am bound to believe it
2. If it is not in the Scriptures I am not bound to believe if
3. If it contradicts the Holy Scriptures I am bound to reject it

Ginger

Gabriel of 12:

Again your above opinion of Sola Scriptura sounds Catholic when you dont add the word “Sola” to them. But try giving this definition to 21st protestant, Evangelical christians, you will find many of these disagree with you and ancient Martin Luther, but still preach and teach their “Sola” theology comes from Martin Luther.

p.s I wanted to mention to you, if ML did not intend to use “Sola fe” then why did Martin Luther call the book of James a book of straw? or am I asserting or misrepresenting your founder of your religion?
Peace

 

[graceandglory]

I grew up evangelical Protestant, in the Conference Baptist denomination. During my first 47 years, I was part of several evangelical Protestant denominations, and I was a good and faithful servant, extremely involved in church life.

I absolutely believed that my denomination was totally correct in all its doctrines.
.

Cat,

Thanks for sharing your story.

In all my yrs as a protestant, I saw this kind of stuff happen a lot.

 

[graceandglory]

their pastor is pretty much their pope and authority. they look to him for interpretation and guidance. sure, you can interpret on your own, but how much is formed by the pastor’s teaching? if they don’t agree with most of what you feel, choose another pastor pope who suits you. it’s an open Christian party buffet of beliefs!

Outside of church, we quoted our pastor as much as we quoted scripture. Many pastors are great story tellers. Many TV pastors are story tellers and motivational speakers, who happen to be Christian.

As for me and my house, we will stand on the Rock. If I need some motivation, there are better preachers in the Catholic Church I can tune into. And have more faith that they won’t lead me into error.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Gabriel of 12;
So if your founder John Wesley invented a new method to draw people back to God, and overruled Jesus’s and his apostles teachings on how one is to enter the Kingdom of God?

I don’t know if I’m completely understanding your point… but
Wesley didn’t invent a new Method. He actually resurrected the one the disciples first performed: Go and make disciples. He didn’t overrule anything - he pointed toward it. No one else was visiting the poor and sick in London, and no one else was ministering and converting the coal miners.

You are looking for an argument. Sorry, I won’t give you one.

Pax vobiscum.

 

[Ginger2]

…why did Martin Luther call the book of James a book of straw? or am I asserting or misrepresenting your founder of your religion?
Peace

Another misinterpretation.

Luther was not making a statement of doubt as to the authority of James. .I looked that quote up and what Luther actually said was “compared to” (I think it was the epistles of Paul ) “James is an epistle of straw.”

Luther was making a comparison stating other Epistles were much stronger concerning their witness to Christ.

Ginger

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Ginger. I couldn’t help overhearing:

1. Catholics came up with a definition of Sola Scriptura which is a false doctrine - “all knowledge is contained in the Holy Scriptures”.

If we use this Catholic definition both Protestants and Catholics agree SS is a false doctrine.

You are certainly correct, Catholics (some Catholics, that is) do define “Sola Scriptura” to mean something that Protestants don’t actually believe.

But it’s also worth noting that some Protestants do the reverse, i.e. define “Sola Scriptura” to mean something that Catholics can agree with.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Another misinterpretation.

Luther was not making a statement of doubt as to the authority of James. .I looked that quote up and what Luther actually said was “compared to” (I think it was the epistles of Paul ) “James is an epistle of straw.”

Luther was making a comparison stating other Epistles were much stronger concerning their witness to Christ.

Ginger

Gabriel of 12;

Sorry I would love to take credit for the misrepresentation but the credit goes to protestants and Evangelicals themselves. Remember I as a Roman Catholic do not consider these "sola’s as worthy of belief. So my take on the many misinterpretations of the Sola theories from ML and other protestants are not mine for you to judge by. I repeat speak to your protestants and non catholic evangelicals about their interpretations of the Sola’s theologies invented for them by Martin Luther.

Let me explain, an Evangelical will argue against the Catholic position for faith and works, by using Martin Luthers’ Sola fide, to credit ML for throwing out the book of James as a book of straw. This is not a Catholic argument Ginger, this is a take from protestants and non catholics to prove against Works and faith, by “Sola fide” can only save you, not works and faith, which the book of James contradicts any interpretation of “Sola fide” or “Sola Scriptura”.

Peace be with you. I tell you what, if and when I hear a protestant or non catholic making this Martin Luther argument, I will pm you to the site so that you can argue against the misinterpretation form protestants and Evangelicals about Martin Luther’s “Sola theologies”. You do know protestants and evangelicals have 19th, 20th different century interpretations to the Sola theories, and now you bring a new 21st century interpretation going back to the original Martin Luther Sola’s interpretations.

So it is not fair to question a Catholics view, for one, we are not sure which protestant adhere’s to the 15th century Sola interpretation or recent Sola interpretations which differ.

 

[hope_7]

I know that people may point to the pastor or some church father as saying something and following their teachings.

But the truth is that the scriptures are the authority and this is what they beleve that God will hold them responsible for. This is where they base their faith. If they do not then they are in error. A lot of people fall into error  because they do not take the time to read God,s word for themselves to see what it really says. Or they in some way compromise its teachings.

The authority of scripture outweighs everything else. This includes traditions of the church and lerders in the church even the pope.Those that are church leaders are in a sense judged on this point. This is what got martin luther in trouble and many others . The authority of scripture was over the popes and the churches authority The scripture was to be followed regardless of what the pope and the chrch said.

That dosent mean that a groop of people can be always correct in their intrepation of scripture but one always tries to follow the teachings of scripture as closely as they can. No one person or a large group of people is capable of fully understanding God's word. The true understanding of scripture can only come by the Holy Spirit.

I find the argument by the catholic church called sola scripture as repulsive because it seems to only be a way to explain away the truth of the authority of scripture and an attempt to keep people from looking for themselves.

Martin luther and many others when they read the scriptures found them to be differant from the teahings of the church. There were many people before martin luther who suffered and paid wih their lives for this.

To say that protestants believe in the infallibility of their leaders is hogwash. When someone quotes a person as an authority on some thing in scripture it just means that they are learned in that subject. If it is seen in scripture that they are wrong then they and their teaching is set aside because the Word of God rules. This thread is based on nothing but misunderstanding and is in many ways a way to put down those in the protestant church

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I find the argument by the catholic church called sola scripture as repulsive because it seems to only be a way to explain away the truth of the authority of scripture and an attempt to keep people from looking for themselves.

Gabriel of 12;

The Catholic church does not teach or believe in Sola Scriptura as practiced by protestants. I am surprised that you could take a protestants (Ginger) assumption of what the Cathoilc church teaches or believes without confirming first if in fact its true or not. Secondly the Catholic church is the one who canonized the Chrisitan bible and is the Sole protector of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles using the authority of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition which possesses the full deposit of faith taught by Jesus Christ. The Catholic church breathes and lives out the Scriptures not just reads them. This is the fundamental difference between Sola Scripturalist and the Catholic church. One cannot judge the Catholic church for having the apostolic Traditions from Jesus and the apostles supported by sacred Scripture, This is one reason why the Catholic church cannot hold to such a heresy as “Sola Scriptura” because for the Catholic church to do so, would deny the Apostolic teachings handed down orally before the scriptures were recorded to give support to the Traditions of the apostles. Besides “Sola Scriptura” limits Gods power to a page, where the Catholic church does not limit God and his mercy and Grace’s.

hope;
To say that protestants believe in the infallibility of their leaders is hogwash. When someone quotes a person as an authority on some thing in scripture it just means that they are learned in that subject. If it is seen in scripture that they are wrong then they and their teaching is set aside because the Word of God rules. This thread is based on nothing but misunderstanding and is in many ways a way to put down those in the protestant church

Gabriel of 12;

To accept your take would be to have a misunderstanding of “Infallibility”. As far as I understand this thread to be is explaining what infallibility is.

Infallibility according to the Catholic teaching is Christian teaching on faith and morals by the “Vicar of Jesus Christ” the Pope in the Chair of Peter of whom Jesus built his church, without error. IF protestants think infallibility makes the Pope superman, you are greatly misinformed.

The take from this thread is; IF one adheres to the teachings of their founders of religion to be without error, then one is lead to believe their founder has taught without error or infallibly. Now if it is found their founder greatly misunderstood, to just be put aside gives a great disgrace to the one’s who have been misled by such an error in christian teaching.

That is why the Catholic church is here, and will remain here until Jesus returns for his bride the “Rock” unchanged counting 2000 years now.

Catholics dont believe Protestant leaders are infallible in any way, only that they teach error, because they have no infalliblity to speak of;

Peace be with you

 

[Le_Cracquere]

As others have pointed out, Protestants are a considerably mixed bag. If it’ll serve as an illustration for the OP, I can tell him about how well his points applied to my Pentecostal confreres when I was a slip of a lad:

1. So far from being KJV-only, my church’s members viewed the King James version with muted disapproval, if not hostility–its archaic language was viewed as overlearned and Pharasaical, and most kinds of traditionalism in general would get you looked at sideways.
2. We’d have a fair bit of contention about plenty of issues: came with the Protestant territory. Our minister knew his stuff and he got much benefit of the doubt, but his wasn’t the only set of opinions and he didn’t mind a bit of honest disagreement about non-essentials (e.g.: no one questioned the Nicene Creed-grade stuff, even if they hadn’t heard of the Nicene Creed).
3. The members didn’t trust the individual reader’s interpretative powers any more than the most orthodox Catholic does: the prevailing belief was that the Holy Spirit, who has made His home in every born-again Christian’s heart, offers guidance in reading the scriptures correctly. That’s not reconcilable with Catholic doctrine, I wouldn’t ask or expect a Catholic to buy that line, and I no longer buy that line myself, but there’s an ontological difference between holding such beliefs and considering “every man a law to himself.” (Now is there a practical difference? Fair question.)

Reason enough to use caution when starting a thread with “Protestants believe in…” Ah, the fascinations and frustrations of Protestant taxonomy.

 

[JJHIII]

Hogwash. This is anti-Protestant rhetoric.

Considering the fact that I do go to the Protestant church were this is an attitude of the church-goers I can’t see it as hogwash or anti-protestant.
It was not meant to be anti-anything it’s just a mere statement of how some Protestants perceive their leaders. Not “infallible,” it is just assumed that the leaders have done their homework. It is wrong for the people to think that way, however they do.

 

[oinesra0211]

DOMINUS VOBISCUM!

Everybody is agreed that no human authority of any Christian religion worth its salt will admit that its teaching authority is fallible and dubious. If it does admit then it has rendered its faith and its followers irrelevant and insane. Admission of fallibility by any religion is a crazy “hara kiri”. It is a mechanism for self-destruction that no Christian religion will dare employ. Surely, it will lose followers. Losing followers is losing money.

It is clear as day that the only difference between the Roman Catholic Church and all the other Christian religions on the matter of infallibility is such that the teaching authority or “Magesterium” of the Roman Catholic Church openly declares it while the others don’t. The “Magesterium” jumped the gun on the teaching authority of the other Christian Churches. It is open declaration versus non-declaration of infallibility. It is that simple. It is a must that all Christian religions need to radiate an aura of infallibility. It is a prerequisite to survive the cut-throat competition. Each Christian religion painstakingly highlights and magnifies the mistakes and excesses of their counterparts and continually throws mud pies resembling chocolate cakes on each other’s faces until kingdom come and the one who blinks loses. It is that kind of game the Christian religions play. It is akin to a perpetual chess match with innovative opening moves and crafted tactical maneuvers. Each brother seeing the speck on each other’s eyes and each brother denying the existence of the speck. Admitting the presence of the speck is a step to doomsday and oblivion.

Everybody is agreed that infallibility is the twin of perfection. In this terrestrial world, nobody is perfect. Therefore, nobody is infallible even the so-called teaching authorities of all religions for that matter.

For further insights on the matter of infallibility, you may visit helium.com/items/1141265

Peace to everyone!

 

[thirdn6]

DOMINUS VOBISCUM!

Everybody is agreed that no human authority of any Christian religion worth its salt will admit that its teaching authority is fallible and dubious. If it does admit then it has rendered its faith and its followers irrelevant and insane. Admission of fallibility by any religion is a crazy “hara kiri”. It is a mechanism for self-destruction that no Christian religion will dare employ. Surely, it will lose followers. Losing followers is losing money.!

Opinion or infallible statement?

It is clear as day that the only difference between the Roman Catholic Church and all the other Christian religions on the matter of infallibility is such that the teaching authority or “Magesterium” of the Roman Catholic Church openly declares it while the others don’t. The “Magesterium” jumped the gun on the teaching authority of the other Christian Churches. It is open declaration versus non-declaration of infallibility. It is that simple. It is a must that all Christian religions need to radiate an aura of infallibility. It is a prerequisite to survive the cut-throat competition. Each Christian religion painstakingly highlights and magnifies the mistakes and excesses of their counterparts and continually throws mud pies resembling chocolate cakes on each other’s faces until kingdom come and the one who blinks loses. It is that kind of game the Christian religions play. It is akin to a perpetual chess match with innovative opening moves and crafted tactical maneuvers. Each brother seeing the speck on each other’s eyes and each brother denying the existence of the speck. Admitting the presence of the speck is a step to doomsday and oblivion.

Well… (same as comment above)

Everybody is agreed that infallibility is the twin of perfection. In this terrestrial world, nobody is perfect. Therefore, nobody is infallible even the so-called teaching authorities of all religions for that matter.

Peace to everyone!

Hmmm…

Your name’s Arsenic? Oops- my mistake!
Your name’s Arsenio? Correct?

The first statement contains personal error.
The second is an infallible truth even if repeated a million times!

That’s how the Roman Catholic Church works.
It differentiates truths from lies (errors) in regards faith and morals. By doing that, it becomes necessary to guard, maintain, and proclaim these truths. Because it is necessary for believers to abide in those truths to attain salvation. To abide in truth is to become perfected in Christ.

As there are infallible truths in science so there are in matters of faith.

Religion becomes necessary to identify which Church maintains those truths.