Is the church infallible in Protestant theology?

[fhansen]

Despite the theories, in reality, Protestants also read the Bible in communities. I think in some sense "sola scriptura" was misleading. The Reformers thought the Catholic community had gotten so off track that it was impossible to believe their understanding was a reasonable interpretation of Scripture. But, at least with Luther and Calvin, the result was just as much a community understanding of Scripture as the Catholic one.

Probably the biggest difference was that Reformers didn't claim inerrancy for their communities. That meant that if they fell into error, it could be corrected. Unfortunately while they didn't claim it in principle, their communities ended up claiming it in practice. The only community that actually allows for continuing correction is the mainline / liberal one, a community in which many Catholics are participants at least in part.

Yes, Protestants generally won’t acknowledge that their interpretations would be infallible. But for all practical purposes that’s how they treat them when, for example, they vehemently oppose a differing interpretation.

 

[Albion]

Yes, Protestants generally won’t acknowledge that their interpretations would be infallible. But for all practical purposes that’s how they treat them when, for example, they vehemently oppose a differing interpretation.

That's the way a lot of Catholics prefer to look at the matter, but of course it's not true.

These Protestants may feel confident that they have the correct interpretation or understanding of some Bible passage, etc., but that's not at all the same as thinking that it's guaranteed to be infallible.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What’s really unfortunate is that the Roman Catholic Church gave a bad name to the actual Catholic Church since the RCC is so often referred to as the Catholic Church when in all reality the RCC was excommunicated from the Catholic Church back in 1054AD before all the atrocities that they are associated with took place. So the apostolic Catholic Church automatically gets a bad reputation because most people don’t know the history of the church. They hear the word Catholic and automatically reject everything about it based on RCC doctrines and actions.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's the way a lot of Catholics prefer to look at the matter, but of course it's not true.

These Protestants may feel confident that they have the correct interpretation or understanding of some Bible passage, etc., but that's not at all the same as thinking that it's guaranteed to be infallible.

Add to that the concept of unchanging as well as infallible. Although a certain denomination claims to be the one unchanging and infallible church history alone clearly demonstrates that it is neither.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Add to that the concept of unchanging as well as infallible. Although a certain denomination claims to be the one unchanging and infallible church history alone clearly demonstrates that it is neither.

The RCC you mean, not the apostolic Catholic Church.

 

[Albion]

Add to that the concept of unchanging as well as infallible. Although a certain denomination claims to be the one unchanging and infallible church history alone clearly demonstrates that it is neither.

Yes. It's "something" when any denomination says that it is unique for never having changed but also explains all the changes by reference to what it calls "development of doctrine."

 

[fhansen]

What’s really unfortunate is that the Roman Catholic Church gave a bad name to the actual Catholic Church since the RCC is so often referred to as the Catholic Church when in all reality the RCC was excommunicated from the Catholic Church back in 1054AD before all the atrocities that they are associated with took place. So the apostolic Catholic Church automatically gets a bad reputation because most people don’t know the history of the church. They hear the word Catholic and automatically reject everything about it based on RCC doctrines and actions.

Most people don't know history period, but pepper much of it with pop-mytholgy. Atrocities occured in the eastern church as well, and in Protestantism. This is because peope often behave badly-sinfully-a concept supported by the Church's own doctrine of orignal sin. The RCC was never excommunicated of course, unless we consider it a mutual excommunicatioin, and was in fact still known strictly by the name Catholic church at that time . Doctrine had virtually nothing to do with the split in reality, while the arugment over authority did. Meanwhile the basic practice and doctrine of the Church in the east and west remained the same and are vitually identical to this day on many of the issues that the Reformers divided over. And this is why the Catholic Church considers EO teachings to be correct and apostolic, for example.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Atrocities occured in the eastern church as well,

Like what?

 

[BNR32FAN]

The RCC was never excommunicated of course, unless we consider it a mutual excommunicatioin, and was in fact still known strictly by the name Catholic church at that time .

Well when you examine exactly what happened it’s easy to see who was excommunicated. At the time of the excommunication there were 5 head bishops known as the pentarchy who each governed the churches in their jurisdiction. They were the bishop of Rome, the bishop of Alexandria, the bishop of Antioch, the bishop of Jerusalem, and the bishop of Constantinople. When the bishop of Rome made his claim to papal supremacy that he alone wielded supreme authority over all the churches no one supported that claim. He was completely alone in that claim which is precisely why when the excommunication took place all four of the other patriarchs adopted the name Orthodox Catholic Church meaning the correct or genuine Catholic Church. No one supported the bishop of Rome’s claim he was all alone in it. So when your dealing with an organization that is governed by a council, which the Catholic Church always has been, one member cannot overrule all others nor can one member excommunicate all others, although the majority of any council can excommunicate one member we’ve seen this take place many times throughout the ecumenical councils. See if one member can overrule all others then it’s not really a council at all it’s a dictatorship. That’s not how the Catholic Church was governed dating all the way back to the apostles with the first ecumenical council in Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 15.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Meanwhile the basic practice and doctrine of the Church in the east and west remained the same and are vitually identical to this day on many of the issues that the Reformers divided over.

No I disagree with this as well. Purgatory and indulgences were not doctrines of the church at the time of the excommunication which were huge factors in the reformation movement and are not identical at all since the eastern churches rejected both of these doctrines and the councils that formulated them labeling them as heretical. Papal infallibility was obviously not a doctrine endorsed by the east since it was the determining factor for Rome’s excommunication. Priest celibacy is not enforced or mandatory for priesthood although it is somewhat encouraged in the east.

 

[fhansen]

Like what?

Burnings at the stake- according to Kallistos Ware. The truth is that we live in very different times than back in the day when such punishments were considered acceptable, and heresy was considered to be a scourge because the faith had been the glue that had been holding society together in a very fragmented and otherwise hopeless and faithless world. It would be great if they'd been living more closely according to the light, the love, that had been shown to the world at the beginning but that's exactly what's been happenng, gradually, since His advent, in the hearts of each individual as they're willing to open themselves to it. Meanwhile our entire world is also positively affected by that light, consciously or not, even as the darkness continues alongside, on its course.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Burnings at the stake- according to Kallistos Ware.

Where did you find this information? I’m not familiar with it and I can’t seem to find anything on it. Kallistos Ware is a 20th century Eastern Orthodox bishop.

 

[com7fy8]

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?

In other wording > are there Protestants who feel what they and other Protestants believe is only their own opinion and never can be infallible? I would say there are certain, but not all, Protestants who feel their beliefs are only opinion since they are human; and ones like this can always be not sure of their faith, since they feel it is based on opinion . . . on their human and therefore fallible ability to get things straight.

But if God is personal with people, and able to communicate with us personally to make us sure of what He has for us >

This can be why there are Protestants who know they can be without error. They also know they can be wrong. And so, they say we need to check what we think and do, by what the Bible says.

But my opinion is, that even if we hold to an infallible truth of God's word, how we hold to it can be imperfect, and even totally wrong. For example, the Pharisees had correct beliefs from the scriptures, but they were hypocrites.

Therefore, I would say we always need to depend on God to correct us and make sure we are holding to and living His beliefs the right way, in His love in sharing with Him and with one another as family >

"Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:31-32)

So, we need how Jesus is. We need how Jesus has us become and love. And how God does this in us is infallible > how God has us living His word is infallible. So, I see we are wise to always trust God to do with us all He means by His word. We need to not get sidetracked into squabbling with certain ones who claim to speak for everyone in their groups . . . while they fallibly try to represent what people in other groups are thinking and doing.

How we are in comparison with Jesus . . . and how His word says to become and to relate in love . . . being submissive to how our Father personally rules us in His peace (Colossians 3:15) - - - these are basics of our Christian calling, and I do not hear or read much about this which is right in the Bible. I mean, certain people of a group can go on and on comparing themselves with other groups, and congratulating their own selves; but how much are ones attentive to being conformed by God to the image of His Son, and discovering how to submit to and relate with God in His own peace?

I am concerned, then, with where the attention is going.

"For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise." (2 Corinthians 10:12)

Now, by the way > in the scripture quoted above >

"forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you" >

So-o-o > is it not infallible that God wants each of us His children to forgive, "even as God"? However, it seems there are ones claiming to know who and what is infallible; yet, they never have brought our attention to this infallible command to forgive "even as God".

Can you name any well-known competing and comparing leader or group that has given us the infallible teaching, that God wants us to forgive "even as God"? So, in case someone claims to be giving us infallible things, but he or she has not guided us to this infallible command in God's word, possibly such a person is guiding our attention in a way that is fallible, even right while maybe giving people some handout of a few correct beliefs.

So, I would say feed on God's word; there is plenty here which is infallible and worthy of our attention! - - not only for beliefs and practices, but how to share with God and how to relate in His love.

 

[hedrick]

Burnings at the stake- according to Kallistos Ware. The truth is that we live in very different times than back in the day when such punishments were considered acceptable, and heresy was considered to be a scourge because the faith had been the glue that had been holding society together in a very fragmented and otherwise hopeless and faithless world. It would be great if they'd been living more closely according to the light, the love, that had been shown to the world at the beginning but that's exactly what's been happenng, gradually, since His advent, in the hearts of each individual as they're willing to open themselves to it. Meanwhile our entire world is also positively affected by that light, consciously or not, even as the darkness continues alongside, on its course.

It's easy to see why heresy was treated that way. Life was difficult. Cultures couldn't survive the equivalent of culture wars.

But I still think it was a mistake that should have been known. The unity of the Church should never have been conceived as doctrinal unity, but as serving one Lord. This problem occurred very early in the church. It wasn't helped by the fact that the primary group who didn't buy into intellectual lock-step was into weird imaginative creations.

 

[BobRyan]

Probably the biggest difference was that Reformers didn't claim inerrancy for their communities. That meant that if they fell into error, it could be corrected. Unfortunately while they didn't claim it in principle, their communities ended up claiming it in practice. The only community that actually allows for continuing correction is the mainline / liberal one, a community in which many Catholics are participants at least in part.

"Changing doctrine" -- (which is often to "corrupt doctrine") is also a product of the sinful nature as we see with Eve and with the Jews at the time of Christ being reminded of how much their changes in doctrine and tradition had brought in doctrinal corruption (Mark 7:6-13).

Changing/restoring/correcting as a function of sola-scriptura where scripture condemns church tradition and doctrine - as we see Christ doing in Mark 7:6-13 ... is a "good thing". But "changes" that corrupt good doctrine - are a "Bad thing".

 

[bbbbbbb]

"Changing doctrine" -- (which is often to "corrupt doctrine") is also a product of the sinful nature as we see with Eve and with the Jews at the time of Christ being reminded of how much their changes in doctrine and tradition had brought in doctrinal corruption (Mark 7:6-13).

Changing/restoring/correcting as a function of sola-scriptura where scripture condemns church tradition and doctrine - as we see Christ doing in Mark 7:6-13 ... is a "good thing". But "changes" that corrupt good doctrine - are a "Bad thing".

Out of curiosity, do you see the changes in doctrine in your own denomination to be a good or a bad thing?

 

[fhansen]

Well when you examine exactly what happened it’s easy to see who was excommunicated. At the time of the excommunication there were 5 head bishops known as the pentarchy who each governed the churches in their jurisdiction. They were the bishop of Rome, the bishop of Alexandria, the bishop of Antioch, the bishop of Jerusalem, and the bishop of Constantinople. When the bishop of Rome made his claim to papal supremacy that he alone wielded supreme authority over all the churches no one supported that claim. He was completely alone in that claim which is precisely why when the excommunication took place all four of the other patriarchs adopted the name Orthodox Catholic Church meaning the correct or genuine Catholic Church. No one supported the bishop of Rome’s claim he was all alone in it. So when your dealing with an organization that is governed by a council, which the Catholic Church always has been, one member cannot overrule all others nor can one member excommunicate all others, although the majority of any council can excommunicate one member we’ve seen this take place many times throughout the ecumenical councils. See if one member can overrule all others then it’s not really a council at all it’s a dictatorship. That’s not how the Catholic Church was governed dating all the way back to the apostles with the first ecumenical council in Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 15.

Everyone excommunicated each other and the main question would concern who had the right and authority to excommunicate anyone else to begin with. Truth isn’t determined by majority vote in any case. And I like conciliarism because it acknowledges the role of the Church, the authority of the church, to make determinations on matters of the faith. Many Protestants object to such centralized authority from the get-go, however, while rejecting any conciliar decisions altogether- or possibly still accepting them, at least selectively, usually while maintaining that Scripture is already patently clear on those issues. The truth about Sola Scriptura, however, is that it can make the arrival at Christian truths a virtual free-for-all, with many relevant matters disagreed upon. But it does succeed in wresting authority from any one particular entity, so all can believe whatever they prefer. Meanwhile both the EO and the RCC maintain the necessity of Tradition for providing an authoritative source of revelation separate from but complementary to Scriture.

Anyway, the Catholic Church, for its part, firmly acknowledges the place of the Church in having received and preserved the truths of the faith, and acknowledges the need for a central authority where the doctrinal buck can stop. Her own understanding can be looked upon as arrogance-or simply as a practicality that God has addressed by providing an entity which can rule or put a final stamp of approval on any given decision on matters of faith or morals. I can certainly at least see the need and reason for such a living authority where otherwise individuals divide over the meaning of Scripture or even of conciliar decrees. Whether it’s workable or not is another story but obviously the best case would be if everyone was on board with something like that-not at all likely these days for a variety of reasons. But in any case the RCC recognizes that there is and can only be one Church, a basic concept we should all agree on IMO. And, again, for its part she acknowledges that most of Protestantism as well as the EO and the RCC are all part of that one Church.

If controversy arose today, what entity would be recognized to decide on the matter? No Protestant or even Eastern Catholic Church can call an ecumenical council as the Roman Catholic Church has continued to do from time to time, whether or not others recognize the councils as such. Or where the official stamp of approval can be given to decrees issuing from a local council such as at Orange in 529 where bishops from the west met and made determinations on the nature and purpose of grace, rulings that many Protestants have admired and found profitable to this day.

 

[fhansen]

It's easy to see why heresy was treated that way. Life was difficult. Cultures couldn't survive the equivalent of culture wars.

But I still think it was a mistake that should have been known. The unity of the Church should never have been conceived as doctrinal unity, but as serving one Lord. This problem occurred very early in the church. It wasn't helped by the fact that the primary group who didn't buy into intellectual lock-step was into weird imaginative creations.

The creeds, themselves, were an attempt at ensuring doctrinal unity on basic matters. I think the need for that should be obvious enough.

 

[Albion]

The truth about Sola Scriptura, however, is that it can make the arrival at Christian truths a virtual free-for-all, with many relevant matters disagreed upon.

...and of course that's also true for Tradition and Conciliar authority. Perhaps even moreso than for Sola Scriptura.

Meanwhile both the EO and the RCC maintain the necessity of Tradition for providing an authoritative source of revelation separate from but complementary to Scriture.

Sure. They both assert that it's Tradition they follow, but each of these churches looks at the same Christian history and then selects out whatever appeals to them and they then arrive at quite different doctrines. Yet they continue to say their doctrines are based on that same alleged Tradition.

 

[fhansen]

Where did you find this information? I’m not familiar with it and I can’t seem to find anything on it. Kallistos Ware is a 20th century Eastern Orthodox bishop.

Yes, he is, relying on historical evidence as we all do. I can look into it more but the point is that such punishments were widespread in that time, not limited to the west.