Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter polgas733
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you think that my use of the term eclaisial body is triumphal in nature the I suggest you remove the log from your own eye.I am merely following the form as promolgated or evinced by the Holy Father himself,a term that he habitually uses.There is only ONE Church founded by Christ,Not a plethora of literally tens of thousands founded by men.The Truth is the Truth and whether YOU mischaracterise it as "superiority"is of little matter.
 
If you think that my use of the term eclaisial body is triumphal in nature the I suggest you remove the log from your own eye.I am merely following the form as promolgated or evinced by the Holy Father himself,a term that he habitually uses.There is only ONE Church founded by Christ,Not a plethora of literally tens of thousands founded by men.
Yes and I am sorry if I came across as criticizing you specifically. I know you are only following the manner in which the Holy Father addresses our fellow brother and sister churches and I believe the Holy Father should work on breaking that habit.
 
“Well, how do you know that the CC;s infallible authority is indeed infallible?” If the Roman Catholic demands infallible knowledge in order to know for certain that the Bible is infallibly authoritative, then it follows that one would have to have infallible knowledge that the first infallible authority is indeed infallible. This would require another infallible authority. That would, in turn, require another infallible authority in order to authenticate the infallibility of the second infallible authority, and on and on it goes into an infinite regression of infallible authorities required in order to have infallible knowledge.

The only infallible authority we have other than the Scripture is the Holy Spirit. Quit trying to deny the Holy Spirit’s role in convicting the hearts of believers of the truthfulness of God’s Word

John 14:26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

If God wants to give His Word in written form without the need of another authority to authenticate it, then that is obviously within His power. But He chose to give us the Holy Spirit.
I believe that Jesus gave Peter the authority
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19).
 
Yes and I am sorry if I came across as criticizing you specifically. I know you are only following the manner in which the Holy Father addresses our fellow brother and sister churches and I believe the Holy Father should work on breaking that habit.
By referring to them as churches it only serves to legitimise their existance.They are an abbertation from the True branch and were originally founded in heresy.There cannot be many truths there can only be one.there is only one Body of Christ and protestants are part of it due to a mystical connection to the Catholic Church not because of the innerrancy of the particular denomination that they follow.Seventh Day Adventism considers Christ’s Church to be the whore of Babylon.I don’t mean that as a non sequitor but it would be a poverty to consider all "churches"equal.
 
By referring to them as churches it only serves to legitimise their existance.They are an abbertation from the True branch and were originally founded in heresy.There cannot be many truths there can only be one.there is only one Body of Christ and protestants are part of it due to a mystical connection to the Catholic Church not because of the innerrancy of the particular denomination that they follow.Seventh Day Adventism considers Christ’s Church to be the whore of Babylon.I don’t mean that as a non sequitor but it would be a poverty to consider all "churches"equal.
No one claimed that all the churches were equal. There is no reason, logical or theological, that they need be.
 
  1. Read what I posted above. You are entirely evading all I posted there.
No evasion, either I am not explaining myself well enough or you cannot understand the explanation, possibly refusing to understand to give authority to the beliefs of ALL the Protestants who have rejected the one Church.
  1. I’m entirely lost as to your premise that students are infallible and unaccountable (making me wonder why I had tests in college). You refuse to share why you have this idea that students are infallible - you’ve ignored that over and over and over. So I just have no reason to consider this apologetic.
Leave the carnal thinking for just a few seconds. Men cannot improve on, or even compete with, God’s plan. God gave authority to men that He appointed, then He built a Church with those men in authority. He promised the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth/He Himself, would guide/teach/be with them until the consummation of the world. What college professor promised, or could even accomplish, such things to you? Because you can take college courses and become wiser than your earthly teachers, does not compare to what Christ taught. He is still the head of the body which is His Church. The Apostolic successors themselves are not infallible. It’s the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth/Christ Himself, that is infallible through those men in authority over His Church.
  1. You don’t seem to notice that Jesus never said this to The Catholic Church.
You don’t seem to notice that Jesus never said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church**(s)**.’ A Church built upon rock is one, many Churchs that are not one are similar to being built upon grains of sand. Christ was the wise man who built His Church upon rock.
  1. He doesn’t promise this to the church.
Oh, He was specifically speaking to men He appointed over His Church and not a ‘multitude’. He knew these men were mortal men who would eventually die and not be present at the consummation of the world. If He spoke it to the multitudes, during a sermon, you’d have a basis for saying, ‘it was spoken to everyone, in all times.’
  1. There STILL is one church. But that has nothing to do with The Catholic Church or any other denomination. Where does this say that The Catholic Church is - and ever will be - infallible, unaccountable and we must accept whatever IT exclusively and particularly teachers “with docility” “as God speaking” but hold ALL OTHER teachers as fully accountable - right here, right now. You keep insisting that JESUS SAID THESE THINGS and keep proving He did no such thing. Your whole premise is that Jesus PROMISED all this specifically, exclusively to The Catholic Church, that IT and IT ITSELF ALONE is and will be in all perpetuity be infallible and unaccountable and whatever it says must be just accepted with docility. And that since it has a teacher who is infallible, ergo it MUST be infallible since students are infallible, but you keep evading any explanation for where you got the idea that students are infallible and unaccountable. And that God promised to lead IT (again - not a single Scripture to support that claims) and that all followers are infallible/unaccountable - but again, I have no idea where you get that idea. Certainly not from the Bible (as I quoted a couple of instances to you to show this is a false premise on your part).
There is not one Church, of the same mind and judgement, of the same accord, where the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known, that is the pillar and ground of truth, in many denominations, with slight to different doctrines, all based on many interpretations of scriptures.

To have an ‘accountability’, as you refer to it, you have to have an authority to make sure that accountability is correct. When there are thousands of authorities, all claiming truth as guided by the Holy Spirit through their own interpretations, it’s not accountability any longer, it’s chaos.
I have quoted Scriptures. You’ve never commented on them. Scriptures where God warns us of FALSE teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray - which means teachers can be false and thus are accountable. I quoted where Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing them, for declaring them false.
God built ONE Church. Who are the false teachers if there are many ‘new’ Churchs, with slight to great differences in doctrines based on private interpretations, all claiming guidance by the same Spirit? The ONE Church was the teachers set by God.

(CONTINUED)
 
I think that truth matters - especially doctrines concerning our souls. I think that teachers of such are accountable for such. The Catholic Church no less or no more than any other. This is where we disagree - because, as a Catholic, you may not hold The Catholic Church accountable for the doctrines it teaches but must accept whatever IT exclusively says “with docility.” And you’ve been trying to defend the wisdom of accepting whatever a teacher says because the self same so insists that you just do.

Here are but a few of the Scriptures I’ve shared, all of which suggests accountability:
2 Peter 2:1
Titus 2:1
1 Timothy 6:3
James 3:1
Revelation 2:2
Matthew 13:52
Luke 20:46
Ephesians 4:14

And of course, consider that your denomination INSISTS that ALL teachers be FULLY accountable - right here, right now!!! It just insists on exempting one and exclusively one from this: itself. THAT is what we are disagreeing about, the epistemological soundness of THAT.

Thank you.

Pax
  • Josiah
You say, ‘truth matters’. How did men 1500 years after Christ built His Church find the authority to discern truth and find that the truth that was taught by Christ was not the truth being taught in the ONE Church for 1500 years?

Why is it you refuse to address Martin Luther’s view of the Catholic Church, specifically that he believed it to be the Church Christ started but, found objections of the sinful men and their practices in his own era? Why, now, has it become the Church of the Bible was not the Catholic Church, or that the Church was one and remained one until the Protestant reformation?

**2Pe 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

Tit 2:1 But speak thou the things that become sound doctrine:

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to that doctrine which is according to godliness,

Jas 3:1 Be ye not many masters, my brethren, knowing that you receive the greater judgment.

Rev 2:2 I know thy works and thy labour and thy patience and how thou canst not bear them that are evil. And thou hast tried them who say they are apostles and are not: and hast found them liars:

Mat 13:52 He said unto them: Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.

Luk 20:46 Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes and love salutations in the market place and the first chairs in the synagogues and the chief rooms at feasts:

Eph 4:14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive. **

Now, in reviewing the scriptures, you finally provided, I do see accountability in that everyone should hold to the traditions learned either by word or epistle.

2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

What you’re proposing is that Protestants, 1500 years later, decided which were correct doctrines and which were incorrect. Again, in making such assertions of right and wrong, they themselves claim ‘truth’ and infallibility.

See this leaves us with who has the authority to make such decisions of what is correct and what is not. You show ‘some’ verses that imply an accountability, but you do not show the verses giving ALL Protestant denominations have the authority to judge the authority given by Christ.

There is an accountability, defined by the authoritative men of the Church through the scriptures and traditions, Christ built. It’s not for everyone who reads a new meaning into scriptures to decide, those doctrines are wrong and must be rejected, according to their new private interpretation. The new interpretations began in the 1500s and exist even unto present day with everyone who thinks themselves to have an infallible interpretation over everyone else, therefore they feel called to start a new Church.
 
…What you’re proposing is that Protestants, 1500 years later, decided which were correct doctrines and which were incorrect. Again, in making such assertions of right and wrong, they themselves claim ‘truth’ and infallibility…
No, they do not claim this. It is a requirement that YOU are placing on them. But it is not definitional to the position of Protestantism, nor to any claim about truth.
 
You say, ‘truth matters’. How did men 1500 years after Christ built His Church find the authority to discern truth and find that the truth that was taught by Christ was not the truth being taught in the ONE Church for 1500 years?..
You can thank the Renaissance.
 
No, they do not claim this. It is a requirement that YOU are placing on them. But it is not definitional to the position of Protestantism, nor to any claim about truth.
History places that requirement on them, not me.

Evidently you cannot see that the Protestants, here specifically, are claiming Catholics and their doctrines are wrong. For them to claim we are wrong, they proclaim themselves to be right. Truth is right, it is not wrong. To claim right is to claim truth and it is to claim infallible.
 
You can thank the Renaissance.
Is the Renaissance the gates of hell? :rolleyes:

See, there is the problem. A whole Church, started by Christ, is judged wrong because of the actions of sinful men. If the Church, started by Christ, is wrong because of the actions of sinful men, Christ was wrong.

Now show us the Church of today that is without sinful men? All men are sinful, Christ knew this when He built His Church. The infallible source is the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth/Christ being with us until the consummation of the world.

God used sinful men to start a Church and He gave them authority. He use sinful men to write the scriptures. He used sinful men to define the canon of the New Testament. He used sinful men to translate the scriptures into various languages. He used sinful men to preserve those scriptures through the ages. Are you now trying to tell me that there were no sinful men in the reformation?

It still seems that your argument denies the power of God to accomplish all things, including holding to His words and promises, because of sinful men.
 
Is the Renaissance the gates of hell? :rolleyes:

See, there is the problem. A whole Church, started by Christ, is judged wrong because of the actions of sinful men. If the Church, started by Christ, is wrong because of the actions of sinful men, Christ was wrong…
This is a false logical imperative. Explain how this conclusion is correct, please.

And no one called the first church started by Jesus “wrong”. You continually mischaracterize the statements that you respond to.
 
Are you now trying to tell me that there were no sinful men in the reformation?
Not at all. See, you keep REQUIRING that authority be infallible. This is an arbitrary requirement.
It still seems that your argument denies the power of God to accomplish all things, including holding to His words and promises, because of sinful men.
I am not denying this at all. I have not commented on this in any way, and would likely not since I am not certain that there is a “God”. I don’t think that the Bible illustrates an omnipotent God, but I am only speaking of the Biblical depictions, not theological dogma.
 
History places that requirement on them, not me.

Evidently you cannot see that the Protestants, here specifically, are claiming Catholics and their doctrines are wrong. For them to claim we are wrong, they proclaim themselves to be right. Truth is right, it is not wrong. To claim right is to claim truth and it is to claim infallible.
Nope. No requirement that I be infallible to be right. What an absurd suggestion.
 
This is a false logical imperative. Explain how this conclusion is correct, please.

And no one called the first church started by Jesus “wrong”. You continually mischaracterize the statements that you respond to.
If I’m that hard to understand, maybe you shouldn’t try and read my posts, much less respond to them. If it was my misunderstanding of your articulated response of ‘You can thank the Renaissance’, then I apologize, but I think anyone can see how it leaves much for me to try and read exactly what it was you were articulating. It would be helpful, for me at least, if you elaborated a bit more.

To infer there was a time period of sinful men that affected Christ’s Church from prevailing, is believing Christ was wrong by stating that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
 
Not at all. See, you keep REQUIRING that authority be infallible. This is an arbitrary requirement.

I am not denying this at all. I have not commented on this in any way, and would likely not since I am not certain that there is a “God”. I don’t think that the Bible illustrates an omnipotent God, but I am only speaking of the Biblical depictions, not theological dogma.
Without an infallible authority we have, as scriptures state, unlearned, unstable and unwise leading others, even to their own destructions.

Since you’re not certain if there is a God then why is it your posts seem to only find objection with the Catholic view of God, and not ALL Christians proclaiming there is a God, on these forums?
 
Nope. No requirement that I be infallible to be right. What an absurd suggestion.
When it comes to being right about God’s truth, it’s not absurd. It’s unlearned, unstable and unwise to think that God’s truth is not right or fallible, especially to those who believe in God without question.
 
Without an infallible authority we have, as scriptures state, unlearned, unstable and unwise leading others, even to their own destructions.

Since you’re not certain if there is a God then why is it your posts seem to only find objection with the Catholic view of God, and not ALL Christians proclaiming there is a God, on these forums?
Actually, it is mostly YOUR unqualified and erroneous claims that I object to. No one else makes your claims. Or I would object to them, too.
 
When it comes to being right about God’s truth, it’s not absurd. It’s unlearned, unstable and unwise to think that God’s truth is not right or fallible, especially to those who believe in God without question.
All Christians believe in God and God’s truth.

There is no Biblical claim to the infallibility of any church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top