What do Protestants make of the "infallible authority" argument?

[EphelDuath]

Though the Pharisees were hypocrites, Jesus said that they still had the authority to teach Israel as they had inherited it from Moses (Matthew 23:1-3). The same is true of the Catholic Church. The bishops, even though they are imperfect and prone to sin, still have the authority to teach as they inherited it from Jesus and the apostles by proxy (Hebrews 13:7). Where does the authority of Sola scriptura come from? You can derive any meaning you want from scripture; but the only valid interpretation is the Church’s. This is not an isolated occurrence in the Bible. Ezra and the Levites had to explain the Torah to the people of Israel (Nehemiah 8:7-8).

Jesus clearly intended to have a heirarchy on Earth. To mirror the clergy of Israel, he ordained priests (John 20:22-23, 1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:5, James 5:14), deacons (1 Timothy 3:8, Philippians 1:1) and bishops (Acts 20:17 & 28, Titus 1:7, 1 Timothy 3:1, 1 Peter 2:25, Philippians 1:1), which was the position of the apostles. The apostles elected successors (Acts 1:21-26). Why would heretics such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, who deny the authority of the clergy, have a better interpretation of holy scriptures than infallibly ordained bishops that can be traced back to Jesus himself? Furthermore, why would Protestant ministers have any authority on behalf of Christ if they were not ordained by the bishops? Was Ezra ordained by God, or a random reformer who decided Israel needed a helper?

When the Northern Kingdom of Israel seceded from the Southern Kingdom of Judah, God stayed with Judah (the original), not Israel (the rebels). It was because Judah continued to hold the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:32), which was God’s only valid ordained place of worship; Israel attempted to make its own temples, which were false and contrary to God. The modern equivalent is of Holy Communion. The Catholics continue to hold the Eucharist, which is the parallel of the Temple (John 2:18-22); the power to consecrate the Eucharist is one only given to priests, an authority that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli NEVER held.

When God wanted an important job done, he sent a prophet. When Israel fell into apostasy, he sent the incredibly pious Elijah to challenge the pagans. He commanded the humble David to take the throne of Judea from Saul’s disobedience. And, of course, to redeem the sins of the entire world, he sent his sinless son Jesus Christ. Why then, to fix his holy church, would he summon the outright evil man Martin Luther? He advocated the burning of all synagogues, the annihilation of the Jewish religion, and ensuring that these “poisonous envenomed worms” be “forced into labor or expelled for all time” (On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543). Does this sound like the type of man God would ordain to heal his broken church?

 

[bengal_fan]

well, i think your argument is faulty on a few points.

Jesus never ordained any except the 12. the twelve did pass on the ordination, but you said Jesus ordained priests, deacons, and bishops which He never did.

the argument that the pharisees had “infallible authority” doesn’t really play itself out historically. the pharisees argued with each other on interpretation and things would change with the changing of the high priest. this is not the catholic view of papal infallibility so it probably not a good idea to use it to support papal infallibility.

there were many rabbis who walked around teaching. most only passed on another rabbis’ teaching. then there would be special ones who were said to “teach with authority” (sounds familiar doesn’t it? it’s how people described the way Jesus taught). when Jesus was asked questions about His interpretation of scripture, He was basically being asked which rabbi He aligned Himself with. Jesus, however, was never consistently aligned with one rabbi (He took the truth from a few different ones).

lastly, if the pharisees did have infallible authority to interpret scripture and their view was that Jesus did not fulfill the role of Messiah, then, by your argument, Jesus wasn’t the Messiah.

that’s basically what i think of your argument. i won’t even get into to protestant bashing that you included in your remarks.

 

[Steadfast]

No claim of infallibility is made by Jesus for those who sit in Moses’ seat.

In each instance you give of God sending a prophet or a leader to His people, He does so without the agency of an institutional choice or ordination; the call to the person comes directly.

At the same time, the priesthood was hereditary, the provenance of the sons of Aaron. These priests were not appointed and ordained by the temple authority, they were priests by virtue of their being born to a priestly family.

None of this is analogous to the RCC practice.

 

[Steadfast]

Re: chosen men of God and evil acts.

Did not God choose and raise up Joshua and the judges to slay and kill the inhabitants of Canaan?

As for Luther, he said nothing more than many good Catholic priests and preachers have said before him.

We don’t have to excuse him for his diatribe against the Jews, but neither do we have to consider him “outright evil” because he spoke as a man of his day in manifest frustration with people who, having the oracles of God in the Old testament, yet refused to believe on the One Yahweh had sent.

Your whole post stinks to high heaven of slander and grandstanding and really poor biblical interpretation.

 

[SolaFide]

Context, context, context! You failed to use the rest of this passage. Very important!

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
Mat 23:2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
Mat 23:3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
Mat 23:4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
Mat 23:5 "**Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;

(and their mitres high and their robes long)

Mat 23:6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
Mat 23:7 they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’ **

(or Father, your emminence, your holiness, ad nauseum)

Mat 23:8 "But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.

Mat 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

(This is in respect to religous leaders, not biological fathers)

Mat 23:10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
Mat 23:11 The greatest among you will be your servant.
Mat 23:12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Mat 23:14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]

Mat 23:15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
Mat 23:16 "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’
Mat 23:17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
Mat 23:18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.’
Mat 23:19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?..

Mat 23:23 **"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! **You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
Mat 23:24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
Mat 23:25 "**Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! **You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
Mat 23:26 **Blind Pharisee! **First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
Mat 23:27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.
Mat 23:28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
Mat 23:29 **"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! **You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
Mat 23:30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’
Mat 23:31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
Mat 23:33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
Mat 23:34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.

Notice how Jesus refers to those religious leaders who tell other people what to do and don’t do it themselves. Blind guides, snakes, vipers, hypocrites, tombs full of dead men’s bones. This is my point about the past popes who indulged in every form of wickedness. This behavior isn’t excused by Christ in any way.

I’ll finish my reply in another post

 

[SolaFide]

The bishops, even though they are imperfect and prone to sin, still have the authority to teach as they inherited it from Jesus and the apostles by proxy (Hebrews 13:7).

Only if their lives lived up to the standard of the Word of God.

Heb 13:5 **Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; **for He Himself has said, “I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU,”
Heb 13:6 so that we confidently say,
“THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID.
WHAT WILL MAN DO TO ME?”
Heb 13:7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and **considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. **
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

I dare say that the character and conduct of many popes would be worth imitating.

Nevertheless, there are many passages to say to imitate those whose faith is blameless, not necessarily just leaders.

Where does the authority of Sola scriptura come from?

From here:
2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2Tim 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (NASB)

Other translations give a fuller view of the meaning of the word translated “adequate” above:

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Tim 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NKJV)

ALL Scripture (not just some of it) is God’s word. Thus it can teach us doctrin, correct us, instruct us in righteousness. So that the man of God will be complete (lacking nothing), thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work.

Sounds pretty complete to me.

You can derive any meaning you want from scripture;

No you can’t. Not if one follows a historical/grammatical, exegetical, inductive approach to Scripture. You don’t just read into Scripture what you want, you look at the history, what’s going on, who speaking to whom and why, etc. With that being said…next post…

 

[SolaFide]

This is not an isolated occurrence in the Bible. Ezra and the Levites had to explain the Torah to the people of Israel (Nehemiah 8:7-8).

What’s going on here in Nehemiah? Nehemiah is reading the law to a bunch of people who hadn’t been in Israel in 70 years. Many (most) of the people who he is talking to had been born and raised in Babylon, they didn’t speak Hebrew as their common everyday language anymore. The passage, as the Babylonian Talmud explains it, is that this passage is talking about Nehemiah TRANSLATING what’s being read so they could understand it.

Jesus clearly intended to have a heirarchy on Earth. To mirror the clergy of Israel, he ordained priests (John 20:22-23, 1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:5, James 5:14), deacons (1 Timothy 3:8, Philippians 1:1) and bishops (Acts 20:17 & 28, Titus 1:7, 1 Timothy 3:1, 1 Peter 2:25, Philippians 1:1), which was the position of the apostles. The apostles elected successors (Acts 1:21-26).

Most of the passages you quoted are about elders and deacons, not priests. These people were to SERVE the people. Deacon can literally mean “one who waits on tables.” The apostles elected ONE successor (singular), to replace Judas.

Why would heretics such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, who deny the authority of the clergy, have a better interpretation of holy scriptures than infallibly (PUH-LEASE!) ordained bishops that can be traced back to Jesus himself? (NOT!) Furthermore, why would Protestant ministers have any authority on behalf of Christ if they were not ordained by the bishops? Was Ezra ordained by God, or a random reformer who decided Israel needed a helper?

Ezra was a man used of God and chosen by God to do His work. Ezra’s contemporary, Nehemiah took it upon himself after fasting and praying to go the King and ask to go back to Israel once he received the news of the broken down city of Jerusalem and the terrible state it was in.

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. went to the King of Heaven in prayer to reform the church when they heard the broken down state she was in too.

When the Northern Kingdom of Israel seceded from the Southern Kingdom of Judah, God stayed with Judah (the original), not Israel (the rebels). It was because Judah continued to hold the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:32), which was God’s only valid ordained place of worship; Israel attempted to make its own temples, which were false and contrary to God.

Okay, one part we agree on.

The modern equivalent is of Holy Communion. The Catholics continue to hold the Eucharist, which is the parallel of the Temple (John 2:18-22); the power to consecrate the Eucharist is one only given to priests, an authority that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli NEVER held.

NO. Jesus Christ is the Temple NOT the monstrance. This is not parallel to the temple. There is NO power to consecrate anything by the priests. All born again Christians are a holy priesthood!

When God wanted an important job done, he sent a prophet. When Israel fell into apostasy, he sent the incredibly pious Elijah to challenge the pagans. He commanded the humble David to take the throne of Judea from Saul’s disobedience. And, of course, to redeem the sins of the entire world, he sent his sinless son Jesus Christ.

So far, so good…

Why then, to fix his holy church, would he summon the outright evil man Martin Luther?

LOL! I’m not even going to dignify the Luther response with an answer. But, why then would he send the outright evil MEN of the popes to lead the church? Answer, HE DIDN’T!!! People who live in glass cathedrals shouldn’t throw stones.

He advocated the burning of all synagogues, the annihilation of the Jewish religion, and ensuring that these “poisonous envenomed worms” be “forced into labor or expelled for all time” (On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543). Does this sound like the type of man God would ordain to heal his broken church?

Do men that have whores, bastard children and rape and pillage widows, and female pilgrems sound like the type of men God would ordain to run his church?

 

[EphelDuath]

Jesus never ordained any except the 12. the twelve did pass on the ordination, but you said Jesus ordained priests, deacons, and bishops which He never did.

The apostles were the vicar of Jesus, so their religious commandments were on behalf of him. Did they not have the authority to have a heirarchy?

the argument that the pharisees had “infallible authority” doesn’t really play itself out historically. the pharisees argued with each other on interpretation and things would change with the changing of the high priest.

I didn’t say they had infallible authority, just that they had the right to teach. Jesus was reprimanding them for being hypocrites, but they still taught in truth, as opposed to the Samaritans, Gentiles and Sadducees.

lastly, if the pharisees did have infallible authority to interpret scripture and their view was that Jesus did not fulfill the role of Messiah, then, by your argument, Jesus wasn’t the Messiah.

They made that decision after the Resurrection, which is when they lost their authority.

At the same time, the priesthood was hereditary, the provenance of the sons of Aaron. These priests were not appointed and ordained by the temple authority, they were priests by virtue of their being born to a priestly family.

Judaism was a racial religion, not meant for all mankind, thus their authority was passed on by family as opposed to by ordination.

And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. (This is in respect to religous leaders, not biological fathers)

He was only speaking of the Pharisees, not of all religious leaders. If you take this literally, you also have to accept that Jesus also says “call no man ‘teacher’,” which isn’t supported by the fact that he also asks his other disciples to be students to the apostles.

Notice how Jesus refers to those religious leaders who tell other people what to do and don’t do it themselves. Blind guides, snakes, vipers, hypocrites, tombs full of dead men’s bones. This is my point about the past popes who indulged in every form of wickedness. This behavior isn’t excused by Christ in any way.

True. But you’re ignoring the very first three lines of the entire passage: despite their hypocrisy, they still had authority.

Only if their lives lived up to the standard of the Word of God.

They often do. The corrupt ones are the minority nowadays. I hope you aren’t claiming that every bishop in history was bad for imitation, because that would include the apostles.

2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2Tim 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (NASB)

I agree, scripture is an authority. The passage does not say it is the only authority, which contradicts 2 Thessalonians.

No you can’t. Not if one follows a historical/grammatical, exegetical, inductive approach to Scripture. You don’t just read into Scripture what you want, you look at the history, what’s going on, who speaking to whom and why, etc.

I agree that there’s only one CORRECT interpretation. That doesn’t mean that you can’t derive your own in spite of that. Is the Rapture before or after the Tribulation? Protestants disagree on that, and they can back themselves up with scripture on both accounts.

Why should I listen to your interpretations of the text, and not Jack Chick’s? What makes me think you’re any “righter” than he is? Both rely on the Bible.

What’s going on here in Nehemiah? Nehemiah is reading the law to a bunch of people who hadn’t been in Israel in 70 years.

Read the passage. He had to explain what it meant, not just translate it.

Most of the passages you quoted are about elders and deacons, not priests.

Elders were priests. Disagreeing with that is wordplay. An elder is one who went out and healed the sick (James 5:14-15). That’s exactly what a priest is.

The apostles elected ONE successor (singular), to replace Judas.

Because he was all they had to replace at the time. Is there any evidence that Matthias was meant to be the only replacement for all time?

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. went to the King of Heaven in prayer to reform the church when they heard the broken down state she was in too.

It’s impossible that God ordained them all to reform the church, because they themselves disagreed on how to reform it. They each started their own splinter churches. Do we have a schizophrenic God?

NO. Jesus Christ is the Temple NOT the monstrance.

… the Eucharist IS Jesus Christ, not the monstrance. What kind of response is this?

 

[bengal_fan]

The apostles were the vicar of Jesus, so their religious commandments were on behalf of him. Did they not have the authority to have a heirarchy?

of course they had the authority to pass along what Jesus gave them. that"s what i was saying. i just pointed out that you were wrong when you said that Jesus ordained priests, deacons and bishops. the only thing Jesus did was appoint apostles.

I didn’t say they had infallible authority, just that they had the right to teach. Jesus was reprimanding them for being hypocrites, but they still taught in truth, as opposed to the Samaritans, Gentiles and Sadducees.

you did say it in the title of this thread. through the title you implied that the pharisees had infallible authority. you are wrong in that inference. if it’s not what you meant, that’s fine.

They made that decision after the Resurrection, which is when they lost their authority.

so God can give infallible authority and then take it away? that doesn’t bode well for your argument either.

 

[Steadfast]

First it was “infallible authority” and now it’s just a sort of general teaching competence that the Pharisees and temple leadership had.

Well, where’s the argument? What Protestant denies that the church has the competence and authority to teach and admonish disciples?

 

[bengal_fan]

First it was “infallible authority” and now it’s just a sort of general teaching competence that the Pharisees and temple leadership had.

Well, where’s the argument? What Protestant denies that the church has the competence and authority to teach and admonish disciples?

there is no “argument” here, just a grasp and a poor interpretation of scripture. now, that’s not to say that i don’t wrestle with the historical aspect of infallibility (meaning that there is historical evidence that the early church held that the church itself was infallible and some evidence that some passed that attribute to the pope), but this is just a very poor argument from scripture for it. i’ve heard it before and, to anyone who reads the context, it is a weak one.

 

[Steadfast]

You know, there are so many real issues we could be talking about instead of contrived, tortured nonsense…

Oh well.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The seat of Moses was the legal system, and Isreal today has one. So, applying this to the pope makes no sense.

Also, the way many of us see the whole thing, is a pope declaring himself infallible.

Please.