Is the church infallible in Protestant theology?

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:
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.”

And we know what "they taught" because we see it in the scriptures they wrote. So for us it is still "sola scriptura testing" just as it was in Acts 17:11 when Paul himself was tested - sola scriptura.

There are numerous counterfeit Gospels using the same Bible

The flaw in that case is not in the Bible - it is in failure to do the sola-scriptura test. Christ points this same thing out in Mark 7:6-13. "invalidating the Word of God" - via the "traditions of man".


The Jehovah’s Witnesses it turns out didn’t need to alter John 1:1,

I have seen Jehovah's witnesses converted based on sola scriptura testing - but I have never seen one convert based on saying "choose to believe what such-and-such a denomination teaches and not what you see the Bible teaching - since that denomination always says they are right".
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Placemat
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
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.

You have free will of course and as they say "to each his own". My point is that the Protestant principle of testing all doctrine "sola scriptura" is the only objective standard.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
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.

Do you view that scripture as not being infallible??
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Placemat
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.



Do you view that scripture as not being infallible??
I often find quite plausible while conflicting interpretations of Scripture with each side acting as if their particular position is absolutely and obviously correct while the other's is wrong- and there's no difference between that kind of certitude and the assertion of infallibility.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.
We absolutely do need the input of other believers, other's who've come before us and who trace their faith roots to the beginning, originally derived from the Lord. This occurred, for example, with Paul and the Bereans, and with Philip and the Eunuch. Both needed to hear the truth taught to them as they couldn't determine it strictly on their own with Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
And we know what "they taught" because we see it in the scriptures they wrote. So for us it is still "sola scriptura testing" just as it was in Acts 17:11 when Paul himself was tested - sola scriptura.



The flaw in that case is not in the Bible - it is in failure to do the sola-scriptura test. Christ points this same thing out in Mark 7:6-13. "invalidating the Word of God" - via the "traditions of man".




I have seen Jehovah's witnesses converted based on sola scriptura testing - but I have never seen one convert based on saying "choose to believe what such-and-such a denomination teaches and not what you see the Bible teaching - since that denomination always says they are right".

Actually, because there is no canon written into the actual books of the Bible, the canon is literally a Holy Tradition. It was established by Saint Athanasius, peomulgated throughout the fifth century, and made official in the Western church by Pope (technically Archbishop) Gelasius. So who is to say these books don’t belong? What if Athanasius made a mistake?
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Actually, because there is no canon written into the actual books of the Bible, the canon is literally a Holy Tradition. It was established by Saint Athanasius, peomulgated throughout the fifth century, and made official in the Western church by Pope (technically Archbishop) Gelasius. So who is to say these books don’t belong? What if Athanasius made a mistake?
That’s a bit of an oversimplification. It developed in a distributed way over time. But it’s a reasonable question for fundamentalists. Mainline Christians, however, tend to judge books individually. But we don’t claim that any random passage in Scripture has as much authority as any other. I’m not aware of any plausible candidates to be used the way we use the Gospels and Paul. The subtraction of Jude or the addition of some other early book wouldn’t make much difference to us. I think Lutherans take a similar view in theory, though the fundamentalist controversies have pushed conservative Lutherans to a de facto position similar to other conservative Protestants.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Actually, because there is no canon written into the actual books of the Bible, the canon is literally a Holy Tradition.

There is no reference at all to that in scripture. Nothing of the sort "we don't know what scripture actually is yet - we need to wait a few centuries for someone to tell us".

So notice Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “So it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

NT writers never write as if the reader "does not know what scripture is" or "what all the scriptures" are.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I often find quite plausible while conflicting interpretations of Scripture with each side acting as if their particular position is absolutely and obviously correct while the other's is wrong- and there's no difference between that kind of certitude and the assertion of infallibility.

Sola scriptura testing is how "protesting catholics" came into being with a defense that was so effective an entire order of the priesthood was created to try and stop it. To the point that the Bible was on the list of forbidden books.

So historically the effectiveness of this is beyond dispute.

And what is the alternative?

"Why don't you just accept whatever the magisterium in my denomination says" ??? That is not a very compelling solution. Not very objective.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Sola scriptura testing is how "protesting catholics" came into being with a defense that was so effective an entire order of the priesthood was created to try and stop it. To the point that the Bible was on the list of forbidden books.
Effectiveness of what? Blind rebellion? The Reformers were right in wanting reform-and that's an ever-necessary endeavor BTW. But not reform of doctrine. And whose Reformation do we pay heed to? Because while they all agreed they wanted freedom from the RCC, they didn't all agree on what doctrinal reform was to actually consist of. They're still arguing between each other about it in the majority of threads on these very forums, all using Scripture. The idea of forbidding bible reading by individuals probably wasn't such an unwise or visionary one at the time considering the mess the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has resulted in. Even if not possible at the end of the day. As it is the RCC promotes bible study now-but also advises it be done in consideration of Church teachings.
"Why don't you just accept whatever the magisterium in my denomination says" ??? That is not a very compelling solution. Not very objective.
And you should understand by now that our acceptance of the bible, itself, is also largely subjective, as is the acceptance of the pontifications of modern era prophetesses, as an example. Anyway, I would never ask or expect anyone to blindly accept the teachings of any church or philosophy, religion, etc. I was raised Catholic but left the church for over 25 years, never expecting to return. We must be convinced, on our own, before we jump. We must pray, and study, and never presume we already know. Anyway, here're some related teachings:
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,339.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
There is no reference at all to that in scripture. Nothing of the sort "we don't know what scripture actually is yet - we need to wait a few centuries for someone to tell us".

So notice Luke 24:25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “So it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

NT writers never write as if the reader "does not know what scripture is" or "what all the scriptures" are.
Clearly in the verses from Luke that you quote refer to scriptures (graphas) in a sense that clearly suggests what we would describe as the Old Testament. Clearly what is less clear is if this refers to the Masoretic Canon or the Septuagint. Clearly what it seems not refer to at that stage was the Canon of the New Testament.

This of course is echoed in the words of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed were we reference that the Holy Spirit 'spoke through the prophets'. I accept your contention that the NT writers never write as if the reader does not know what scripture is, or what all the scripture are. On the basis of what I understand I would take it to be a reference the the Septuagint.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Clearly in the verses from Luke that you quote refer to scriptures (graphas) in a sense that clearly suggests what we would describe as the Old Testament.

True and it is "in a text" (the Gospel of Matthew) that we would also classify as "scripture". The point is that neither the NT writers nor readers had the concept of "well hmmm I guess we don't actually know what the term -ALL of Scripture- means".

The fact that centuries later some "other group" gets its own idea of what "clarity" is - on that subject - never comes into play for the first century saints.

Nobody in the first century was "waiting" for someone to tell them what scripture is. That idea is totally foreign to the NT writers.

Clearly what is less clear is if this refers to the Masoretic Canon or the Septuagint. Clearly what it seems not refer to at that stage was the Canon of the New Testament.

I accept your contention that the NT writers never write as if the reader does not know what scripture is, or what all the scripture are.

Indeed. So also in Isaiah 8: "20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

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

There was never a time when they were saying "nope can't test doctrine against scripture because we are waiting for someone in the 4th century A.D. to tell us what that is"

On the basis of what I understand I would take it to be a reference the the Septuagint.

Josephus points out in the first century A.D. that the Hebrew canon of scripture had remained unchanged for over 300 years.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Effectiveness of what? Blind rebellion?
The Reformers were right in wanting reform-and that's an ever-necessary endeavor BTW. But not reform of doctrine.

The protesting-catholics that organized into the Protestant Reformation were following the example of Christ in Mark 7:6-13 as he challenged the magesterium of the "one True nation church" started by God at Sinai - since it had gone-off-the-rails in its "traditions" that were introducing bad doctrine.

Mark 7
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Classic example of traditions of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai - getting hammered "sola scriptura" by Christ -- showing us how it is done.


they didn't all agree on what doctrinal reform was to actually consist of.

errors piled up over the centuries. Uprooting of that pile of errors took place over centuries.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The protesting-catholics that organized into the Protestant Reformation were following the example of Christ in Mark 7:6-13 as he challenged the magesterium of the "one True nation church" started by God at Sinai - since it had gone-off-the-rails in its "traditions" that were introducing bad doctrine.
Sure, of course. so we could end up with confusion and more disunity yet.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Classic example of traditions of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai - getting hammered "sola scriptura" by Christ -- showing us how it is done.
Except they can't figure out or agree on how its done. The only thing good that came put of the Reformation was the council of Trent and a wake up call to the church. And some good thinkers such as CS Lewis and various theologians who've contributed much as Protestants-and would've anyway as Catholics.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,507
921
America
Visit site
✟265,291.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
fhansen said:
We absolutely do need the input of other believers, other's who've come before us and who trace their faith roots to the beginning, originally derived from the Lord. This occurred, for example, with Paul and the Bereans, and with Philip and the Eunuch. Both needed to hear the truth taught to them as they couldn't determine it strictly on their own with Scripture.

I would not say we do not need input about matters of faith from other believers. But they do not all believe all the same things. Who are you then going to pick to believe? We can weigh the things we hear, but I would not say those from others are the final word. The authority on matters of faith is what the Bible speaks to, and we believers should learn how to get all that from it.
 
Upvote 0

Placemat

Active Member
Jun 16, 2021
166
23
Kingston
✟36,570.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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

Is there a 'link' to this article you are referring too, as I would be interested in reading it in full. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,507
921
America
Visit site
✟265,291.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
With a believer reading the Bible and believing what is read, being in Christ and praying, most things from it would be understood rightly. There should be other believers who also read the Bible around, and more could be understood from that, but really, having Jesus is needed and hearing from what the Spirit of God shows is most important.

Nobody is infallible. Not you and not I, not any leader and not any Pope. We all disagree on some things and we all make mistakes. It is unrealistic to expect that any one person is an exception to that. The pope and I disagree on things. Who is right, between us? Where we disagree, I am sure is is not the pope. Popes disagree with other popes on things. That is not with having any infallibility. Only what is inspired from God is without error. And that which is without error was what was originally written of what is in the Bible. Copies got almost all of those writings right, but there are some mistakes in the copies themselves, where different copies are different in some certain different places.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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
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.
 
Upvote 0