Scott Husted
Well-Known Member
- Apr 8, 2020
- 860
- 376
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
This is like the vaccine being a one hundred percent guarantee that you will never get or transmit it again.
Upvote
0
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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
And is this opinion of yours infallible as well? I'm sure many, many people would disagree about those sources.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
fhansen said: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.
hedrick said: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.