Question for Protestants?

[joe371]

Yes, the Bible, bound by language, time and culture may make correct statements, but it can’t be and obviously isn’t an infallible teacher—otherwise its meaning would be perfectly clear to all who read it. That’s not God’s fault; that’s human limitation on both the part of the writer and reader. Divine guidance doesn’t result in perfect humans (that’s where your logic breaks down); that’s one of the primary story lines of the Bible itself. And we also know this from human experience.

Sounds like you are suggesting that there is something God cannot do - namely, God cannot infallibly guide a select group of fallible humans in the first century, e.g. the apostles, because infallibility is not part of what it means to be human. If that is true then there is in fact something that God cannot do??? Is this something God cannot do?

I think you are the first person I have met that does not believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, in terms of being used as a means of teaching and discerning truth for each and every Christian, and I would agree, as can be attested in the sphere of Protestantism i.e. everyone comes away from the bible with their unique interpretation. However, I do believe, (in terms of what Jesus infallibly inspired his fallible apostles to write) that the Bible is the infallible word of God, and God discerns truth, when it is being challenged e.g. Arius, via his church leadership e.g. his apostles, just as He did with the very first church leaders e.g. Paul, Luke and Peter…

The difference between you and I is that I believe doctrinal truth has been preserved for every generation, and that God can do anything, which includes guiding His church into all truth until the end of time: Matthew 16:18-21, John 16:13, Ephesians 3:10, Timothy 3:15 and John 14:16. Keeping in mind that my personal interpretation of these verses could be erroneous, which is why I take all final decisions, regarding disputes, to Jesus’ church.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon. You do as scripture tells us to do:thumbsup:; not what sola scriptura advocates (depending on the classification) do - which is take it to sacred scripture, which does nothing in terms of settling disputes. For me the big question was: which church e.g. the CC, the various EOCs, the various LC’s etc. continues to be ineffably and inerrantly guided by God? The answer of course is different for the Catholic Christian, the Eastern Orthodox Christian and the Lutheran Christian. I love all of these churches. However, only one of these churches, in my humble opinion, is the one church of Matthew 16:18-21, John 16:13, Ephesians 3:10, Timothy 3:15 and John 14:16. Either one of these churches continues to be infallibly guided, or none of them are, which really bothered me as a former non-Catholic. :bigyikes:

Hi Joe,
I think in many ways they all are of the one true Church, even when errors are present. IOW, I don’t believe that you left the one true Church when you became Catholic, nor do I believe that you newly entered it.
BTW, it is always good when you come back and hang out for a while.
Jon

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe,
I think in many ways they all are of the one true Church, even when errors are present. IOW, I don’t believe that you left the one true Church when you became Catholic, nor do I believe that you newly entered it.
BTW, it is always good when you come back and hang out for a while.
Jon

Even the CCC agrees with you e.g. CCC 817…:thumbsup:I took a little break from college, and this is one of my favorite hangouts because of people like you brother.

 

[PJM]

=Isaiah45_9;11849261]The Church as the body of Christ to which He is the head, is infallible.

The Church as an institution can’t be infallible because it is not a person, thus incapable of making a mistake or being wrong. That’s reserved for persons in the institution.

The people in the Church when in communion with the Pope makes a statement in regards to faith and morals from the Chair of Peter - it is an infallible statement.

Statements made in a different way, while authoritative - are not infallible.

And this in no way means impeccability. Scriptures themselves testify to peccable individuals inspired by the Holy Spirit being infallible in matters of faith and morals.

Very nicely done my friend!!

Thank you,
Patrick

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Very nicely done my friend!!

Thank you,
Patrick

:tiphat:

Thanks bro’

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Sounds like you are suggesting that there is something God cannot do - namely, God cannot infallibly guide a select group of fallible humans in the first century, e.g. the apostles, because infallibility is not part of what it means to be human. If that is true then there is in fact something that God cannot do??? Is this something God cannot do?

I would suggest a reading through the Bible, particularly the books of Judges and Kings. Simply because God selects people for leadership doesn’t mean they are effective in their jobs, or even morally good for that matter. But that’s they way God has chosen to work. Could God have magically turned the bumbling, agrumentative apostles into mini-gods with special powers for infallible teaching? Where everyone understood perfectly what they were saying at all times? I suppose God could have done that (still it would be very odd since this is, in a sense, the original sin—Gen 3:5) but a read through the New Testament definitely shows that this is not what happened.

I think you are the first person I have met that does not believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, in terms of being used as a means of teaching and discerning truth for each and every Christian, and I would agree, as can be attested in the sphere of Protestantism i.e. everyone comes away from the bible with their unique interpretation. However, I do believe, (in terms of what Jesus infallibly inspired his fallible apostles to write) that the Bible is the infallible word of God, and God discerns truth, when it is being challenged e.g. Arius, via his church leadership e.g. his apostles, just as He did with the very first church leaders e.g. Paul, Luke and Peter…

Once you realize what the Bible is and how it was compiled and copied, it’s clear that there’s simply no way it can be totally free from error (infallible). Christians have never even agreed as to exactly what should be in the Bible! I would suggest looking more closely at the definition of “infallible” and then think about what would constitute an “infallible teacher.” A book can’t be an infallible teacher, particularly a book for which we have no exact copy and for which even with the copies we do have, we can’t always tell what the book is trying to say.

The difference between you and I is that I believe doctrinal truth has been preserved for every generation, and that God can do anything, which includes guiding His church into all truth until the end of time: Matthew 16:18-21, John 16:13, Ephesians 3:10, Timothy 3:15 and John 14:16. Keeping in mind that my personal interpretation of these verses could be erroneous, which is why I take all final decisions, regarding disputes, to Jesus’ church.

God always guides the Church; the Church just doesn’t always follow—because it’s made up human beings and not divine beings. You are trying to argue for a perfect Church which unfortunately doesn’t exist. The Church, at the end of time perhaps, WILL (future tense) be ultimately guided into all truth, but it’s not there now by any stretch. Now we only see in part (1Cor 13:12).

 

[joe371]

Dave Noonan;11850933]I would suggest a reading through the Bible, particularly the books of Judges and Kings. Simply because God selects people for leadership doesn’t mean they are effective in their jobs, or even morally good for that matter. But that’s they way God has chosen to work. Could God have magically turned the bumbling, agrumentative apostles into mini-gods with special powers for infallible teaching? Where everyone understood perfectly what they were saying at all times? I suppose God could have done that (still it would be very odd since this is, in a sense, the original sin—Gen 3:5) but a read through the New Testament definitely shows that this is not what happened.

You said that John 16:13 (Jesus saying to the apostles that he will guide them into all truth) applies to every Christian. Why? If Jesus failed to do as John 13:16 says… to guide the apostles into all truth then he certainly failed to guide every Christian into ali truth, especially in light of all the competing doctrinal beliefs.

Once you realize what the Bible is and how it was compiled and copied, it’s clear that there’s simply no way it can be totally free from error (infallible).

For example: No way to know if the Eucharist is the real presence or merely a symbolic meal? OK.

Christians have never even agreed as to exactly what should be in the Bible! I

Sure the Catholic Church has had its share of dissenters e.g. Nestorius and Arius, but the CC has always remained one in terms of doctrinal unity.

I would suggest looking more closely at the definition of “infallible” and then think about what would constitute an “infallible teacher.” A book can’t be an infallible teacher, particularly a book for which we have no exact copy and for which even with the copies we do have, we can’t always tell what the book is trying to say.

Great point. :thumbsup:When the CC uses the word infallible they are referring to God preserving doctrinal truth, (the teachings of Jesus passed on to the apostles) such as the Trinitarian doctrine, Eucharistic doctrine, doctrine of Baptism and justification etc., and nothing outside Christian doctrine i.e. just those teachings dealing with faith and morals. I have faith that God has ensured the truth regarding these things…the very things that continue to divide Protestantism.

God always guides the Church; the Church just doesn’t always follow—because it’s made up human beings and not divine beings.

So God could have infallibly guided his church but chose not to because that would be tantamount to magically “turning the bumbling, argumentative apostles into mini-gods with special powers for infallible teaching”? Well, I suppose I can safely assume that you believe the following: the teachings of Jesus have not been infallibly preserved, right from the word go. OK.

You are trying to argue for a perfect Church

No. That’s silly…

which unfortunately doesn’t exist. The Church, at the end of time perhaps, WILL (future tense) be ultimately guided into all truth, but it’s not there now by any stretch. Now we only see in part (1Cor 13:12).

If you are right and there is no way to know the absolute truth regarding things like the Eucharist, Baptism and justification, to name a few - then it really wouldn’t matter which church anyone belonged to; I think I get your perspective now, and if you were right (we can’t prove it; we have faith in two different things) then I would agree 100 %.

 

[commenter]

Such as this:

[But as you imply, we have no room to throw stones in this matter. Even within the LCMS, there exists the progressive wing.

Jon

There are 2 ways a Christian can go astray.

1. He can drift away from the teaching authority in his communion.
2. He can follow the teaching authority, but it goes astray itself.
   Sola Scriptura Christians can go wrong, in both ways. It’s pretty easy to prove, since certain denominations founded on SS have taken official positions that other SS churches consider totally wrong, or evil. Sola Scriptura here disproves Sola Scriptura there.

Catholics (IMHO) can only go wrong if they fail in #1. Error #2 does not happen to Catholics because of the Magisterium. It’s harder to disprove the Magisterium, because you have to have a fixed, accepted standard of orthodox teaching that you can line up against the Magisterium, and show “OK, the Magisterium is wrong on point 1, point 3, and on”. Where would you find that fixed standard? The Magisterium, itself, IS the fixed standard. There isn’t another one (outside Heaven) by which you can evaluate this one.

The Magisterium not only defined the NT Canon, ruling out 90% of the potential books, but also defined which 1% of Christian tradition would constitute Sacred Tradition - i. e. “orthodoxy”. Put aside the Magisterium, and you bring back gnosticism and 100 other isms you thought had been safely ruled out. With no Magisterium, you find many unfamiliar and strange “Early Church Fathers” are now reconsidered, not to mention strange gospels.

There has always been dissent by individual Catholics against the Magisterium. There is more dissent now than in 1950, more dissent during Arianism than in 2014. It comes from the Right and Left. No dissent by individuals - 1% or 99% - effects the credibility of the Magisterium.
[/quote]

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You said that John 16:13 (Jesus saying to the apostles that he will guide them into all truth) applies to every Christian.

Where did I say that? Stay classy, Joe. If you’re going to significantly misstate what I said, we can’t have an honest dialogue.

Sure the Catholic Church has had its share of dissenters e.g. Nestorius and Arius, but the CC has always remained one in terms of doctrinal unity.

But not in terms of the content of the Bible. (You can read numerous threads here on this topic.) If the Church wasn’t ever unified on even the content of the Bible, how can you say it was ever unified in doctrine?

Great point. :thumbsup:When the CC uses the word infallible they are referring to God preserving doctrinal truth, (the teachings of Jesus passed on to the apostles) such as the Trinitarian doctrine, Eucharistic doctrine, doctrine of Baptism and justification etc., and nothing outside Christian doctrine i.e. just those teachings dealing with faith and morals. I have faith that God has ensured the truth regarding these things…the very things that continue to divide Protestantism.

“In every century, the errors of the Church’s teaching office have been numerous and indisputable.” This comes from Hans Küng, a Roman Catholic priest and theologian. You might want to read his book Infallible? (page 28 is where you would find the quote) where he describes and documents the varieties of ways the Catholic Church has tried (erroneously in his view) to assert infallibility over the centuries, along with some of the Church’s more significant doctrinal errors.

To me, such a claim would amount to having faith in the apostles and their successors and endowing them with divine abilities that they just don’t have. For me, that would be a flawed and misplaced faith because only God can/should be the object of faith–and thus claims to infallibility are in clear violation of the First Commandment (and simply a replication of the serpent’s claim in Gen 3:5). Faith in a hierarchy a book or an institution will always be a misplaced faith. You might want to also check out Paul Tillich’s Dynamics of Faith at some point.

So God could have infallibly guided his church but chose not to because that would be tantamount to magically “turning the bumbling, argumentative apostles into mini-gods with special powers for infallible teaching”? Well, I suppose I can safely assume that you believe the following: the teachings of Jesus have not been infallibly preserved, right from the word go. OK.

Again, you’re assuming divine guidance results in divine humans—human ability to teach and understand perfectly. God is perfect; humans are not.

If you are right and there is no way to know the absolute truth regarding things like the Eucharist, Baptism and justification, to name a few - then it really wouldn’t matter which church anyone belonged to; I think I get your perspective now, and if you were right (we can’t prove it; we have faith in two different things) then I would agree 100 %.

For me, the term “absolute truth” is nonsensical; things are either true or they aren’t. 1Cor 13:12; our understanding is flawed, partial, and incomplete–simply because we are human beings. Just because someone is a Bishop doesn’t mean he has magical teaching powers.

 

[commenter]

…
“In every century, the errors of the Church’s teaching office have been numerous and indisputable.” This comes from Hans Küng, a Roman Catholic priest and theologian. You might want to read his book Infallible? (page 28 is where you would find the quote) where he describes and documents the varieties of ways the Catholic Church has tried (erroneously in his view) to assert infallibility over the centuries, along with some of the Church’s more significant doctrinal …

Fr. Kung is no longer a RC theologian. Not all theologians are priests, and not all priests are theologians. His priesthood has nothing to do with his status as theologian.
He dissents against the Magisterium. You can quote him, or Luther who also dissented against the Magisterium. Their views deserve respect, but prove nothing in terms of whether the Magisterium is authoritative or not. Both writers disprove the other; many, perhaps all, the writers who oppose the Magisterium also refute most other writers who oppose the Magisterium. Quoting Kung shows that the Magisterium is not universally accepted. True. One can come up with dozens of different versions of sola scriptura, or Kung’s liberal modernism, each position refuting most other sola scriptura or modernist positions. I don’t think Kung - or Luther, or the other Magisterium opponents - demonstrated a better authority than the Magisterium. They still contradict each other.

 

[JonNC]

There are 2 ways a Christian can go astray.

1. He can drift away from the teaching authority in his communion.
2. He can follow the teaching authority, but it goes astray itself.
   Sola Scriptura Christians can go wrong, in both ways. It’s pretty easy to prove, since certain denominations founded on SS have taken official positions that other SS churches consider totally wrong, or evil. Sola Scriptura here disproves Sola Scriptura there.

Catholics (IMHO) can only go wrong if they fail in #1. Error #2 does not happen to Catholics because of the Magisterium. It’s harder to disprove the Magisterium, because you have to have a fixed, accepted standard of orthodox teaching that you can line up against the Magisterium, and show “OK, the Magisterium is wrong on point 1, point 3, and on”. Where would you find that fixed standard? The Magisterium, itself, IS the fixed standard. There isn’t another one (outside Heaven) by which you can evaluate this one.

The Magisterium not only defined the NT Canon, ruling out 90% of the potential books, but also defined which 1% of Christian tradition would constitute Sacred Tradition - i. e. “orthodoxy”. Put aside the Magisterium, and you bring back gnosticism and 100 other isms you thought had been safely ruled out. With no Magisterium, you find many unfamiliar and strange “Early Church Fathers” are now reconsidered, not to mention strange gospels.

There has always been dissent by individual Catholics against the Magisterium. There is more dissent now than in 1950, more dissent during Arianism than in 2014. It comes from the Right and Left. No dissent by individuals - 1% or 99% - effects the credibility of the Magisterium.

That’s good to know, Commenter, my friend, because I would need a place to land if the LCMS were to succumb to the liberal (or mega-church evangelical) heterodoxy.

Jon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Fr. Kung is no longer a RC theologian. Not all theologians are priests, and not all priests are theologians. His priesthood has nothing to do with his status as theologian.
He dissents against the Magisterium. You can quote him, or Luther who also dissented against the Magisterium. Their views deserve respect, but prove nothing in terms of whether the Magisterium is authoritative or not. Both writers disprove the other; many, perhaps all, the writers who oppose the Magisterium also refute most other writers who oppose the Magisterium. Quoting Kung shows that the Magisterium is not universally accepted. True. One can come up with dozens of different versions of sola scriptura, or Kung’s liberal modernism, each position refuting most other sola scriptura or modernist positions. I don’t think Kung - or Luther, or the other Magisterium opponents - demonstrated a better authority than the Magisterium. They still contradict each other.

Just to assert that Luther and Küng “dissent” on the topic of infallibility doesn’t saying anything about the validity of their arguments. (And certainly Luther was saying the same thing at the Diet of Worms. It’s also interesting that a Roman Catholic priest backs up Luther’s assertion almost 500 years after the fact.)

Küng makes a good case and backs up his assertions with examples. Why don’t you think his arguments are valid?

 

[commenter]

Just to assert that Luther and Küng “dissent” on the topic of infallibility doesn’t saying anything about the validity of their arguments. (And certainly Luther was saying the same thing at the Diet of Worms. It’s also interesting that a Roman Catholic priest backs up Luther’s assertion almost 500 years after the fact.)

Küng makes a good case and backs up his assertions with examples. Why don’t you think his arguments are valid?

My reading of Kung shows he attacks the Magisterium, but doesn’t offer a better teaching authority. He himself uses, or assumes, the authority of the Magisterium 90% of the time in building his arguments. Without the Magisterium most of his arguments, his assumptions, his premises fall, or don’t even get off the ground.

He is like the man who assumes all the truth of Jeremiah, builds on the premises and wisdom of Mathew, relies on the authority of the gospel of Luke and follows the logic that he, and his readers accept, and find only in Romans, as part of a larger plan to prove the Bible isn’t inspired. There’s a basic dishonesty here.

Kung doesn’t exactly back up Luther, any more than Kung backs up Arius, Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Moonies, Jimmy Swaggart, and a myriad of other groups, all of whom opposed the Magisterium but also oppose each other.

Neither Kung nor the Moonies, etc, have put forward a better plan for teaching authority than the Magisterium. Neither Kung, nor the Mormons, provide a reason why we should believe what they write. By what authority?

 

[commenter]

That’s good to know, Commenter, my friend, because I would need a place to land if the LCMS were to succumb to the liberal (or mega-church evangelical) heterodoxy.

Jon

The Church is holy. The holiness of the Church is not increased if every Catholic that year is as prayerful as Mother Theresa. It is not decreased even if every Catholic that year including the Pope is worldly and wicked. The sacraments and grace remain the same in both scenarios.

Likewise, the Magisterium does not mean that the Church will always preach the Truth. Sometimes it is silent when it doesn’t know the answer yet. But when it does speak up on Faith and Morals, there is Truth. The Magisterium is a fixed reference point that even non-Catholics take for granted in defining the boundaries of “orthodoxy”. The Church is True, even if most Catholic theologians dissent, even if 100% of Catholics fail to live up to that Truth. The Magisterium isn’t “more true” if 99% agree with it, like “feeding the hungry” nor is it any less true, when 99% oppose it.
(Here’s hoping the LCMS stays faithful, which I think it will!)

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Kung doesn’t exactly back up Luther, any more than Kung backs up Arius, Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Moonies, Jimmy Swaggart, and a myriad of other groups, all of whom opposed the Magisterium but also oppose each other.

I meant specifically Luther’s famous assertion that Popes and Councils had erred. They would agree on that point.

Neither Kung nor the Moonies, etc, have put forward a better plan for teaching authority than the Magisterium. Neither Kung, nor the Mormons, provide a reason why we should believe what they write. By what authority?

I think it’s a little unfair to lump Küng in with Arius, Mormons and the Unification Church (considering he is a Catholic priest in good standing) and your statements honestly do come across as ad hominem. Just because he “attacks the Magisterium” (and I’m sure he would disagree with that characterization) doesn’t make his arguments valid or invalid in and of themselves. To me his arguments are logical and he does provide evidence to back up his claims, and they are consistent with human experience. And I didn’t see how you found them to be specifically faulty.

 

[joe371]

The Church is holy. The holiness of the Church is not increased if every Catholic that year is as prayerful as Mother Theresa. It is not decreased even if every Catholic that year including the Pope is worldly and wicked. The sacraments and grace remain the same in both scenarios.

Likewise, the Magisterium does not mean that the Church will always preach the Truth. Sometimes it is silent when it doesn’t know the answer yet. But when it does speak up on Faith and Morals, there is Truth. The Magisterium is a fixed reference point that even non-Catholics take for granted in defining the boundaries of “orthodoxy”. The Church is True, even if most Catholic theologians dissent, even if 100% of Catholics fail to live up to that Truth. The Magisterium isn’t “more true” if 99% agree with it, like “feeding the hungry” nor is it any less true, when 99% oppose it.
(Here’s hoping the LCMS stays faithful, which I think it will!)

 

[commenter]

I meant specifically Luther’s famous assertion that Popes and Councils had erred. They would agree on that point.

To me his arguments are logical and he does provide evidence to back up his claims, and they are consistent with human experience. And I didn’t see how you found them to be specifically faulty.

Does Kung offer a more reliable model for evaluating Christian teaching than the Magisterium?
If he says “the consensus of theologians” who defines who is a reliable theologian? Any one who claims to be a Christian? Anyone with a PhD? Would he grant a vote to EVERY group - even the Gnostics? What about their scriptures, ancient or modern?

I don’t think Kung ever offered a systematic alternative model of a teaching authority; if he did, would you personally trust it?

If Kung offered an alternative teaching authority, we could compare it to the Magisterium. Until he or someone else does, the Magisterium is the best available.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Does Kung offer a more reliable model for evaluating Christian teaching than the Magisterium?
If he says “the consensus of theologians” who defines who is a reliable theologian? Any one who claims to be a Christian? Anyone with a PhD? Would he grant a vote to EVERY group - even the Gnostics? What about their scriptures, ancient or modern?

I don’t think Kung ever offered a systematic alternative model of a teaching authority; if he did, would you personally trust it?

If Kung offered an alternative teaching authority, we could compare it to the Magisterium. Until he or someone else does, the Magisterium is the best available.

I was understanding from your post #113 that you had read the book and evaluated Küng’s arguments, but now I’m thinking that you probably haven’t.

As a non-Catholic, I don’t operate on a priori assumption that the Catholic magisterium (however defined) can’t have erred, but try as much as possible to evaluate people’s claims based on the evidence and logic presented.

 

[commenter]

I was understanding from your post #113 that you had read the book and evaluated Küng’s arguments, but now I’m thinking that you probably haven’t.

As a non-Catholic, I don’t operate on a priori assumption that the Catholic magisterium (however defined) can’t have erred, but try as much as possible to evaluate people’s claims based on the evidence and logic presented.

I didn’t read the specific book you referred to, but did read other of his books. Regarding your second sentence, I also try to evaluate “based on the evidence and logic presented” - I would also add, “and omitted”.
Since I haven’t read the book you refer to, I would appreciate it if you could cite us a specific alternative to the Magisterium that he offers there, if he offers one. He does not regard Sola Scriptura as authoritative, so does he present a third option?

 

[joe371]

Does Kung offer a more reliable model for evaluating Christian teaching than the Magisterium?
If he says “the consensus of theologians” who defines who is a reliable theologian? Any one who claims to be a Christian? Anyone with a PhD? Would he grant a vote to EVERY group - even the Gnostics? What about their scriptures, ancient or modern?

I don’t think Kung ever offered a systematic alternative model of a teaching authority; if he did, would you personally trust it?

If Kung offered an alternative teaching authority, we could compare it to the Magisterium. Until he or someone else does, the Magisterium is the best available.

If the Holy Spirit, sent to Jesus’ Catholic Church, on Pentecost, (from Ignatius [pupil of the apostles] all the way to Augustine we see the visible CC…and so on) does not continue to guide the teaching office of His Catholic Church, then the fullness of truth is up for grabs i.e. the consensus of the top theologians are in no better of a position than anyone else, especially when it comes to doctrine that divides Christianity e.g. the Eucharist, Baptism, justification etc., for the simple fact that God does not rely on human intellect, but rather God’s infallible power to guide His Catholic church into all truth. I think that is the part many Protestants seem to overlook…as if our theologians are smarter than theirs, when in fact, ultimately, it has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with what was taught to the apostles and safely passed on to the next generation of leaders via the laying on of hands - in perpetuity, as per John 16: 13 and John 14:16.