Is the church infallible in Protestant theology?

Swag365 said:

Or you could be wrong, given that you are a fallible human being yourself.

Click to expand...

We agree: We humans are fallible. The "Pope" is Human. The "Pope" is fallible.

The Bible is the Word.

Fidelibus said:

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? Does the church have the authority to bind individuals to its teachings?


Since I started this thread in reference to Mr. Martignoni's article, I may refer to said article through out this discussion if you decide to participate. Thank You, and have a Blessed day

Click to expand...

The church is the body of Christ which would include Christians of all denominations not any single denomination. So if the church has the ability to bind and loose then it is also not limited to any single denomination. The Holy Spirit can work thru one believer just as he can another.

Biltong65 said:

We agree: We humans are fallible. The "Pope" is Human. The "Pope" is fallible.

The Bible is the Word.

Click to expand...

Of course the pope is fallible. Any other obvious statements you would like to prove?

Swag365 said:

Or you could be wrong, given that you are a fallible human being yourself.

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Given that we agree that Man is fallible (to include the "pope"), Why are we arguing?

Why did you say that "or you could be wrong, given that you are a fallible human being yourself." (we agree)?

dqhall said:

The Catholics may not claim Papal infallibility as they do not know what it means.

Click to expand...

I call Poe.

Biltong65 said:

Given that we agree that Man is fallible (to include the "pope"), Why are we arguing?

Why did you say that "or you could be wrong, given that you are a fallible human being yourself." (we agree)?

Click to expand...

We agree with respect to the proposition that "the pope is falliable" but you stated more than this in the other posts that I responded to. Have a nice day.

Lets try and get back on the thread.

One man does not make a Church. On Bishop does not make a Church. The RCC does not maintain a belief that the Bishop of Rome is infallible in all things, but reserves to a specific set of circumstances where the Pope may speak Ex Cathedra on matters of doctrine. This was not defined until the 18th century and has been invoked very rarely. Whilst I do not accept the proposition, I do understand that what is actually held is a long way removed from that which many detractors suggest is meant.

The proposition of the thread is about the infallibility of the Church. From a Biblical perspective we have Jesus promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. Does that mean that the Church is never wrong, or that the Church will be preserved from absolute apostacy though it may be in error on some things?

Philip_B said:

Lets try and get back on the thread.

One man does not make a Church. On Bishop does not make a Church. The RCC does not maintain a belief that the Bishop of Rome is infallible in all things, but reserves to a specific set of circumstances where the Pope may speak Ex Cathedra on matters of doctrine. This was not defined until the 18th century and has been invoked very rarely. Whilst I do not accept the proposition, I do understand that what is actually held is a long way removed from that which many detractors suggest is meant.

The proposition of the thread is about the infallibility of the Church. From a Biblical perspective we have Jesus promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. Does that mean that the Church is never wrong, or that the Church will be preserved from absolute apostacy though it may be in error on some things?

Click to expand...

The gates of hell will not be able to withstand the onslaught of the Assembly!
The gospel triumphs over the powers of darkness, plucking firebrands from the fire, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The power of God triumphs over evil spirits who oppress people, driving them out.
The word of God smashes through the refuge of lies, constructed by the evil one.
The Lord always leads his children in triumphal procession!

Fidelibus said:

So it is your belief there is absolutely no church within Protestantism that is infallible. Got it! Thanks! With that being said Sparagmos, under the Protestant theological system, this means there is not a single Protestant minister who is infallible, so there is not a single Protestant minister who can be guaranteed to get it right every single time they teach and preach on the Bible.... right? If not correct, could you please explain otherwise?


Have a Blessed day

Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm most definitely infallible...



As a beside, your gut reaction is telling as to what your beliefs are on the topic, and should be the same regardless of the who is telling you they're infallible...





(P.S. I dont believe myself infallible, I said that for the purposes of garnering a reaction... no one is infallible save God)

Swag365 said:

Friend, my initial assertion was that your conclusions are falliable, because you are a human being and you admit that all human beings are falliable. This conclusion is completely logical. Go back and read what I wrote. I wrote that "you could be wrong."

You asked me why I thought you were wrong, and I gave you my reason. If you don't like the answer, that's too bad. I did not state that I intended to provide substantive arguments attempting to prove to you that each of your assertions is incorrect. If you want to engage in that sort of debate, kindly create threads on them. I am sure that someone will oblige you.

As for your "someone thinks it's blue" line of reasoning - it is the person who makes an assertion who carries the burden of proof. You wrote XYZ so you carry the burden of proving that XYZ is true. Otherwise anyone is free to reject it.

Click to expand...

As a human.. I am, of course, fallible.. However, if I say "The sun is hot".. It's pretty sound logic.

Also, If I say that "people will disagree on anything" again.. it's pretty solid logic.

So, if I state:

All churches, men, denominations, sects of any religion.... are fallible.

All religion and denominations are man made.

Christ did not come here to start any religions. He is looking for a relationship.

Denominations are just man made methods with which to do this... and all of them are erroneous

And you want to say all of it is wrong.. Then you must believe:

No church, man, denominations, sects of any religion.... are fallible.

No religion or denominations are man made.

Christ came here to start religions. He is not looking for a relationship.

Denominations are not man made methods with which to do this... and none of them are erroneous

If this is not what you meant when I said:
Not all of it can be wrong.. can it?

And you replied:

Yes.

So, either your logic and your views are busted... Or... you can kindly point out the things that I stated that are incorrect...

If not... whatever...

Fidelibus said:

Now Oz.... would you agree, everything thing you said here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, and keeping within the parameters of Protestant theology, is nothing more that your personal and fallible opinion that could be wrong? However, concerning Paul, I will give my argument of opposition very soon for I have other posts to address before yours.

Have a Blessed Day

Click to expand...

Fidelibus,

All of us - including you and me - are fallible interpreters of Scripture. I am an exegete trained in the grammar and syntax of the Koine Greek language of the NT. To the best of my ability, I try to be faithful to the text.

However, one of the requirements of interpretation is: 'Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth' (2 Tim 2:15 NIV). To keep me on the straight and narrow, I need God's people to help with/challenge my interpretation. You are doing that in this thread.

Nevertheless, for all Chistians we have the responsibility of being like the Bereans (Acts 17:11 NIV) - checking the Scriptures, no matter who proclaims.

Oz

Fidelibus said:

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? Does the church have the authority to bind individuals to its teachings?


Since I started this thread in reference to Mr. Martignoni's article, I may refer to said article through out this discussion if you decide to participate. Thank You, and have a Blessed day

Click to expand...

The Roman Catholic Church was badly corrupted when Constantine made church attendance mandatory, bringing in pagans and even criminals to the Church of Rome.

It

Fidelibus said:

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? Does the church have the authority to bind individuals to its teachings?


Since I started this thread in reference to Mr. Martignoni's article, I may refer to said article through out this discussion if you decide to participate. Thank You, and have a Blessed day

Click to expand...

The RCC has no one who’s infallible, either, certainty not any pope is infallible - and the pope does not have Peters apostleship - in fact, Peter was never in the Roman church, as pope or anything else - the first Pope was Linus.

Peter was the apostle to the Jews, Paul the apostle to the gentiles.

In the Bible Peter is found in the Jerusalem church comprised of Jewish Christians, and not in the gentile Roman Catholic Church.

That’s why PAUL, the apostle to the gentiles, wrote the book of Romans in the NT, and not Peter.

In the Bible, it proves Peter never claimed to have any preeminence over the other apostles, and Jesus in fact said none of His apostles were above the others.

JacksBratt said:

As a human.. I am, of course, fallible.. However, if I say "The sun is hot".. It's pretty sound logic.

Also, If I say that "people will disagree on anything" again.. it's pretty solid logic.

So, if I state:

All churches, men, denominations, sects of any religion.... are fallible.

All religion and denominations are man made.

Christ did not come here to start any religions. He is looking for a relationship.

Denominations are just man made methods with which to do this... and all of them are erroneous

And you want to say all of it is wrong.. Then you must believe:

No church, man, denominations, sects of any religion.... are fallible.

No religion or denominations are man made.

Christ came here to start religions. He is not looking for a relationship.

Denominations are not man made methods with which to do this... and none of them are erroneous

If this is not what you meant when I said:
Not all of it can be wrong.. can it?

And you replied:

Yes.

So, either your logic and your views are busted... Or... you can kindly point out the things that I stated that are incorrect...

If not... whatever...

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the meaning of the phrase "can be" buddy. The entire Catholic faith "can be" wrong. That does not mean that I believe that the entire Catholic faith is wrong, obviously.

Now, if you want me to identify the particular assertions that I believe are wrong, I will be happy to oblige you:

(1) All churches, men, denominations, sects of any religion.... are fallible.

(2) All religion and denominations are man made.

(3) Christ did not come here to start any religions. He is looking for a relationship.

(4) Denominations are just man made methods with which to do this... and all of them are erroneous

I believe that 1, 2, the red part of 3, and 4 (to the extent that you believe the Catholic Church is a denomination) are wrong.

Have a nice day.

chad kincham said:

The Roman Catholic Church was badly corrupted when Constantine made church attendance mandatory, bringing in pagans and even criminals to the Church of Rome.

It


The RCC has no one who’s infallible, either, certainty not any pope is infallible - and the pope does not have Peters apostleship - in fact, Peter was never in the Roman church, as pope or anything else - the first Pope was Linus.

Peter was the apostle to the Jews, Paul the apostle to the gentiles.

In the Bible Peter is found in the Jerusalem church comprised of Jewish Christians, and not in the gentile Roman Catholic Church.

That’s why PAUL, the apostle to the gentiles, wrote the book of Romans in the NT, and not Peter.

In the Bible, it proves Peter never claimed to have any preeminence over the other apostles, and Jesus in fact said none of His apostles were above the others.

Click to expand...

What church do you attend?

chad kincham said:

The Roman Catholic Church was badly corrupted when Constantine made church attendance mandatory, bringing in pagans and even criminals to the Church of Rome.

Click to expand...

The difficulty I have with this polemic is that it is simply not true, by which I mean it fails to accord with what we know of the facts of history.

The notion of a Roman Catholic Church doesn't really make a lot of sense until 1054, more than 700 years after Constantine had died.

Constantine never made Church attendance mandatory. The Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine and Licinius made Christianity - and pretty much any other religion - legal or permissible. As this really is following the Diocletian persecution, it also provided that the Churches have property restored to them. This established a religious pluralism. It is however almost certain that at this stage of his life Constantine was not a Christian per se, and indeed was the Pontifex Maximus of the old Roman Cultic Religion.

Constantine established a new capital on the site of Byzantium, which he called Nova Ramanum and generally became known as Constantinople, and today is known as Istanbul. In the founding of this City it was dedicated to the Christian God and to the Virgin Mother of God.

Constantine was baptised in the final period of his life by Eusebius.

Augustine noted that there were some sheep beyond the fold and that there were some wolves within, and I think that is both an historic and a theological reality, however it makes no sense to suggest that Constantine should wear the blame for this.

Swag365 said:

I don't think you understand the meaning of the phrase "can be" buddy. The entire Catholic faith "can be" wrong. That does not mean that I believe that the entire Catholic faith is wrong, obviously.

Click to expand...

If you check my posts.. You will see that I stated that almost all, if not all of the main line denominations hold to the one solid truth of the necessary events for salvation..

I don't think any denomination is entirely wrong.

Swag365 said:

Now, if you want me to identify the particular assertions that I believe are wrong, I will be happy to oblige you:

(1) All churches, men, denominations, sects of any religion.... are fallible.

(2) All religion and denominations are man made.

(3) Christ did not come here to start any religions. He is looking for a relationship.

(4) Denominations are just man made methods with which to do this... and all of them are erroneous

I believe that 1, 2, the red part of 3, and 4 (to the extent that you believe the Catholic Church is a denomination) are wrong.

Click to expand...

1/ Which denomination is not fallible? Or what church, what man (other than Christ), which sects, which religion... is not fallible?

2/ But... I thought that the RCC was very dependent on the post canon writings of other men other than the apostles.

Would this not make the RCC "man made"? Which religion, which denomination, then, is not made by men?

3/What "religion" did Christ come here to make.. Did He not come here and expose all the religious leaders for the legalistic and erroneous ways? To do away with "religion" and all it's laws.. and promote "going out and making disciples and spreading the gospel to the whole world? Where is the "religion" in that?

4/ Where in scripture does it talk about meeting in a building to listen to a preacher? A church... is any group of people where two or more or gathered.. I would suggest that the biggest part of the modern church that is suggested in the scripture....the Lords Table, Baptism and missionary work.

After that.. it's all man made "religious" actions. It's all do this and do that..

Christ came to tell us that "It's done"

Swag365 said:

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

I'll try.. T'is the week end... You too.

In answer to everyone and nobody in particular: after reading the posts to this thread, I would like to say that the only Church is the Elect. And no, they are not infallible. Not even close.

JacksBratt said:

If you check my posts.. You will see that I stated that almost all, if not all of the main line denominations hold to the one solid truth of the necessary events for salvation..

I don't think any denomination is entirely wrong.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

What church do you attend?

1/ Which denomination is not fallible? Or what church, what man (other than Christ), which sects, which religion... is not fallible?
Catholic

2/ But... I thought that the RCC was very dependent on the post canon writings of other men other than the apostles.

Would this not make the RCC "man made"? Which religion, which denomination, then, is not made by men?
No, the Church teaches what was handed down by the apostles. Those teachings develop within the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You can read Dei Verbum if you want the full explanation of that.

3/What "religion" did Christ come here to make..
Catholic

Did He not come here and expose all the religious leaders for the legalistic and erroneous ways?
He came here to expose at least some religious leaders of their legalistic and erroneous ways.

To do away with "religion" and all it's laws..
No.

and promote "going out and making disciples and spreading the gospel to the whole world?
Yes.

Where is the "religion" in that?
Disciples follow religion.

4/ Where in scripture does it talk about meeting in a building to listen to a preacher?
I have no idea. I haven't looked for that. Why does it matter? People can listen to a preacher outdoors.

A church... is any group of people where two or more or gathered..
No.

I would suggest that the biggest part of the modern church that is suggested in the scripture....the Lords Table, Baptism and missionary work.
Well that comes as no surprise, considering that you don't recognize the other 5 sacraments.

After that.. it's all man made "religious" actions. It's all do this and do that..
No.

Christ came to tell us that "It's done"
Agreed. But "it" does not refer to "religion".

chad kincham said:

The Roman Catholic Church was badly corrupted when Constantine made church attendance mandatory, bringing in pagans and even criminals to the Church of Rome.

Click to expand...

except it wasn't the RCC. that part of Christian history is a part of every believer regardless of the banner you fly.

Fidelibus said:

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? Does the church have the authority to bind individuals to its teachings?


Since I started this thread in reference to Mr. Martignoni's article, I may refer to said article through out this discussion if you decide to participate. Thank You, and have a Blessed day

Click to expand...

Only God is infallible.