Is the church infallible in Protestant theology?

[Scott Husted]

This is like the vaccine being a one hundred percent guarantee that you will never get or transmit it again.

 

[BobRyan]

I was just recently reading an article from Catholic apologist John Martignoni, founder of the Bible Christian Society that sparked my interest. In his article he was talking about Protestantism, Church, and Authority. In his article, he pointed out that since no man is infallible, according to Protestant theology, the best possible scenario one can have in a disagreement as to what is or is not authentic Christian teaching between two God-fearing, Jesus-accepting, Bible-reading, Holy Spirit-praying men, is one man’s fallible opinion of what the Bible says vs. the other man’s fallible opinion of what the Bible says. Would non-Catholics agree this to be true?

If you answered yes, what about the church? What authority does the church have within Protestantism? If no individual within Protestantism is infallible and, therefore, no individual within Protestantism has the authority to bind any other individual to their fallible teachings..... what about the church? Is the church infallible in Protestant theology?

No man is infallible
No church is infallible

HOWEVER the church is a higher level of authority/accuracy than the individual so then the Acts 15 Jerusalem council is a great example of that higher autthority/higher accuracy where individuals submit themselves to a church council to settle doctrinal dispute.

Having said that - Mark 7:6-13 is a great example of the one true nation church started by God - was clearly in error. So the church itself can go into error.

 

[fhansen]

No man is infallible
No church is infallible

HOWEVER the church is a higher level of authority/accuracy than the individual so then the Acts 15 Jerusalem council is a great example of that higher autthority/higher accuracy where individuals submit themselves to a church council to settle doctrinal dispute.

Having said that - Mark 7:6-13 is a great example of the one true nation church started by God - was clearly in error. So the church itself can go into error.

And if no human or human entity is infallible, then none of us should hope to have a high level of certainty regarding the faith.

 

[BobRyan]

And if no human or human entity is infallible, then none of us should hope to have a high level of certainty regarding the faith.

Gal 1:6-9
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel, 7 which is not just another account; but there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, even now I say again: if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul -- were SO"

Acts 20
29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore, be on the alert,

 

[fhansen]

Gal 1:6-9
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel, 7 which is not just another account; but there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (Apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, even now I say again: if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul -- were SO"

Oh, ok. So now you are claiming that infallibility is possible for a human. Consider also that they didn't come to the conclusions that they were checking out on their own. Another group of people offered those truth claims to them.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh, ok. So now you are claiming that infallibility is possible for a human.

No rather Gal 1:6-9 that even if "an apostle or an angel from heaven " comes to you preaching something-- you STILL have to test it against scripture - "to SEE IF" it is so. As I noted here #304

Paul takes the highest most reliable sources known to mankind and says even THEY must be tested.

 

[fhansen]

Paul takes the highest most reliable sources known to mankind...

And is this opinion of yours infallible as well? I'm sure many, many people would disagree about those sources.

 

[The Liturgist]

No rather Gal 1:6-9 that even if "an apostle or an angel from heaven " comes to you preaching something-- you STILL have to test it against scripture - "to SEE IF" it is so. As I noted here #304

Paul takes the highest most reliable sources known to mankind and says even THEY must be tested.

No, St. Paul have to test it against the Gospel they taught. “if any come to you preaching a different Gospel from the one we have taught, let them be anathema.”There are numerous counterfeit Gospels using the same Bible - consider the Arians. The Jehovah’s Witnesses it turns out didn’t need to alter John 1:1, but the reason why they did so is their cult is a scam based on acquiring the believers money, whereas the Arians like Eusebius of Nicomedia desired entree into the Imperial court and political power, which they got, because every Eastern emperor from Constantius until Valens, except for Julian the Apostate, was an Arian, several of whom, particularly Constantius, were aggressive in persecuting the actual Christians.

Since all four canonical Gospels are believed to postdate the bulk of the Pauline epistles, except for the Pastorals, and since he describes the Gospel in the singular, meaning “the Good News we taught”, it has nothing to do with scripture. In fact, if you read on in Galatians, Paul reveals that the Gospel was revealed to him directly by God, and he first went to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus before going to Jerusalem where he met St. Peter and St. James the Just, and he only met with them on that initial trip, his first meeting with the other apostles, who confirmed the divine revelation he had received was in accord with the Gospel St. Peter had received from our Lord.

So, what Paul means is the Gospel must be tested against the teachings of the Apostles, which would only later be written down, and as the Arian heresy demonstrates, as well as a few others like the Montanists, false gospels can be preached by teaching people an incorrect interpretation of the real scriptures. And this is usually the way people do it. Oneness Pentecostals, for example, preach a false Gospel; they are Sabellian heretics who deny the trinity, but they are using our Bibles.

It is for this reason that St. Isidore of Seville wrote that scripture is not in the reading but the interpretation. And thus, if we interpret the written Gospels in a manner congruous with what Paul and the apostles handed down, that’s correct.4

Lest there be no doubt as to my claim, here is the actual text of Galatians 1 in its entirety.

Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters with me,

To the churches in Galatia:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

No Other Gospel
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Paul Called by God
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

 

[The Liturgist]

And is this opinion of yours infallible as well? I'm sure many, many people would disagree about those sources.

I would assume the reference to Scripture, but the problem is, Galatians doesn’t refer to scripture in that case, but to an actual divine revelation. And in this context, Paul did see the true Word of God, the actual, incarnate, Only Begotten Son, who with one would assume the aid of the Holy Spirit, did reveal Himself and His Gospel to Saul on the Road to Damascus, according to the grand design of the Father Greek theologians like to call “The economy of salvation.”

 

[hedrick]

So, what Paul means is the Gospel must be tested against the teachings of the Apostles, which would only later be written down,

But Paul was dealing with views that were held by other apostles. He wasn’t arguing for apostolic authority, but *his* authority, based on *his* personal revelation. This is a model that would lead to chaos if used generally.

The church has accepted him as authoritative, but that acceptance doesn’t mean that other people can claim authority on the same basis that he did. In accepting him, the church also rejected the opinions of other apostles, though of course without admitting they were doing so.

 

[The Liturgist]

But Paul was dealing with views that were held by other apostles. He wasn’t arguing for apostolic authority, but *his* authority, based on *his* personal revelation. This is a model that would lead to chaos if used generally.

The church has accepted him as authoritative, but that acceptance doesn’t mean that other people can claim authority on the same basis that he did. In accepting him, the church also rejected the opinions of other apostles, though of course without admitting they were doing so.

Of course you are entirely right. The authority posessed by the 12, and the 73, and the Apostle Paul, exceeds the authority of any bishops or presbyters they ordained. As Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians, we are to preserve that which they have handed down to us. The phrase One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church in the Creed means that we believe in the ideal or the actuality (depending on ecclesiology; my main discomfort with some forms of Invisible Church ecclesiology is that the Church Catholic becomes something of an ideal; specifically, the ecclesiology of fringe groups like the Order for Corporate Reunion, who were episcopi vagantes who were basically collecting lines of ordination in a bold but somewhat undermanned attempt at healing all of the schisms) of a church which is unified in its acceptance of the entire faith once delivered to the Apostles.

People forget that Catholic means “according to the whole,” even some Catholics, so the word can be used semi-synonymously with Orthodox, in that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the entire church, possessing the entire faith of the apostles. Of course, Orthodox, people forget, is related to faith only by the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi; Orthodox means right-worshipping, right worship is impossible without right belief, but hypothetically one could be right-believing but not right-worshipping (something I would argue is the case with the extreme sort of contemporary Christian Rock music).

 

[hedrick]

Unfortunately we're in a very different situation from Paul. His tradition came from witnesses, who shared very similar religious and culture backgrounds with him.

For me, there's been a lot of reinterpretation in the last 2000 years, and many Christians then and now have very different assumptions about reality and what it means to be human. I'm afraid that for me, the only "whole" that makes sense is the mainline tradition. That's not to say that there's nothing to learn from others, but in terms of making shared judgements about the tradition, not all Christians now and in the past can share that equally. (Indeed American and European Catholics are closest.)

I actually have a fairly catholic concept of how decisions are made, but only mainline Protestants are fully part of my tradition, though others are connected to varying degrees.

 

[The Liturgist]

Unfortunately we're in a very different situation from Paul. His tradition came from witnesses, who shared very similar religious and culture backgrounds with him.

For me, there's been a lot of reinterpretation in the last 2000 years, and many Christians then and now have very different assumptions about reality and what it means to be human. I'm afraid that for me, the only "whole" that makes sense is the mainline tradition. That's not to say that there's nothing to learn from others, but in terms of making shared judgements about the tradition, not all Christians now and in the past can share that equally. (Indeed American and European Catholics are closest.)

I actually have a fairly catholic concept of how decisions are made, but only mainline Protestants are fully part of my tradition, though others are connected to varying degrees.

As a former minister of a mainline church, from my perspective, the traditional liturgical churches that still exist and those which existed in the early 20th century but have gone over to a modernist, liberal theology, were representative of the apostolic kerygma, along with the more traditional parts of the Roman Catholic Church (in the form of archdioceses, dioceses, provinces, orders, and sui juris Eastern churches) and especially the Eastern churches.

Where I am frustrated by the mainline churches is their attitudes on abortion and sexual morality. But there are mainline churches and mainline churches. I am much happier with the Church of England than the Episcopal Church USA, and much happier with the Episcopal Church than the United Church of Christ. But I am happier still with ACNA, the Continuing Anglicans, and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, who I view in a continuum with the more traditional factions of the Roman Catholic church, and the Eastern churches.

 

[hedrick]

You won’t be surprised to hear that I think their attitude towards sex was one of the biggest problem with the early church. That’s not to deny that Roman culture was messed up in that area. Honorable celibacy was apparently a big relief to many. But the church ended up developing an approach that was almost as damaging. Thats probably not something we can talk about here under the rules.

 

[fhansen]

I would assume the reference to Scripture, but the problem is, Galatians doesn’t refer to scripture in that case, but to an actual divine revelation. And in this context, Paul did see the true Word of God, the actual, incarnate, Only Begotten Son, who with one would assume the aid of the Holy Spirit, did reveal Himself and His Gospel to Saul on the Road to Damascus, according to the grand design of the Father Greek theologians like to call “The economy of salvation.”

My main point is that for the individual there's a subjective element to our faith. We must, as weak, limited, finite beings decide for ourselves whether we believe in God to begin with, and/or in the Christian bible, and/or agree with the teachings of one denomination/church or another, etc. We necessarily employ the faculty of reason along with grace and are duty-bound to seek the Truth IMO, doing the best we can with whatever gifts and knowledge are available. But I'd bet there'll be surprises in heaven for everyone to some degree-regarding our personal theologies.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My main point is that for the individual there's a subjective element to our faith. We must, as weak, limited, finite beings decide for ourselves whether we believe in God to begin with, and/or in the Christian bible, and/or agree with the teachings of one denomination/church or another, etc. We necessarily employ the faculty of reason along with grace and are duty-bound to seek the Truth IMO, doing the best we can with whatever gifts and knowledge are available. But I'd bet there'll be surprises in heaven for everyone to some degree-regarding our personal theologies.

Surprises in heaven there will be, indeed. Of that I have no doubt.

 

[FredVB]

My main point is that for the individual there's a subjective element to our faith. We must, as weak, limited, finite beings decide for ourselves whether we believe in God to begin with, and/or in the Christian bible, and/or agree with the teachings of one denomination/church or another, etc. We necessarily employ the faculty of reason along with grace and are duty-bound to seek the Truth IMO, doing the best we can with whatever gifts and knowledge are available. But I'd bet there'll be surprises in heaven for everyone to some degree-regarding our personal theologies.

Believers certainly do not agree on even almost all points. What is of orthodox belief, even of what are Bible teachings, is not good for our basis for things to believe. It is good for believers to read the Bible and learn what things are said in the Bible, most should be doing that more than they do. Of course any doing that will have questions, certainly they can ask such questions of other believers, and it is better to ask such of those who have been godly Christian believers longer. We as believers still have our conscience and we must still answer to that. We can go back to the Bible and find more to answer other parts from that better, so we do not have to take the answers from the other believers. And if anything is absolute, from what believers need that is taught in the Bible, in Christ we should grow, spiritually, with growing in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Believers certainly do not agree on even almost all points. What is of orthodox belief, even of what are Bible teachings, is not good for our basis for things to believe. It is good for believers to read the Bible and learn what things are said in the Bible, most should be doing that more than they do. Of course any doing that will have questions, certainly they can ask such questions of other believers, and it is better to ask such of those who have been godly Christian believers longer. We as believers still have our conscience and we must still answer to that. We can go back to the Bible and find more to answer other parts from that better, so we do not have to take the answers from the other believers. And if anything is absolute, from what believers need that is taught in the Bible, in Christ we should grow, spiritually, with growing in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control.

True, indeed.

 

[FredVB]

Godliness is needed and in Christ it is for us to do as well as we can as we grow spiritually.

 

[FredVB]

You won’t be surprised to hear that I think their attitude towards sex was one of the biggest problem with the early church. But the church ended up developing an approach that was almost as damaging. Thats probably not something we can talk about here under the rules.

It can still be just said, prudishness and inappropriate contentography are two sides of the same coin. If there was not the perspective of human bodies being inappropriate contentographic there would not be the same great interest in inappropriate contentographic material. There would certainly be sexual interest still. But it would not be tied to desire to see certain others unclothed if there was not the taboo of human bodies already with that perspective. The Christian church was not that way to start with but it sure has gone in that direction through the many generations.