Is the church infallible in Protestant theology?

[Swag365]

I don't think the Pope is the biggest problem at this point. Most of the traditional denominations, including those two, now come in mainline and conservative flavors. I don't see the conservatives being interested in uniting with anyone.

Mainline churches at the moment are largely compatible with each other and with US Catholics. But there are two problems: (1) for the moment they are more interested in full communion agreements than union, and (2) Catholic policies on sex and gender are a problem. The mainline groups can't have full relations with the RCC as long as it doesn't recognize ordinations of the other groups, including women and gays.

I think that is an issue even within some of those denominations themselves. From what I understand, for example, some parts of the Anglican church ordain women, but their ordinations are not recognized in other parts of the church.

 

[Swag365]

The Jerusalem church was the very first church, established in Acts chapter 2.

It was the preeminent church for 7 decades until the Romans destroyed it in 70 AD

There were five major churches in the first century, of which the Roman sect is was merely one of five - it had no preeminence.



There’s only one infallible man, and that’s Jesus.

And Jesus, who as the LOGOS is the one who inspired the Bible, tells us to study the scriptures, to search the scriptures, tells Pharisees they do err, not knowing the scriptures, etc.

Catholics are so brainwashed that they think there’s supposed to be some infallible person to tell them what to believe - not accepting the fact that Gods word, in the same bible they use, makes it every believers personal responsibility to actually STUDY the scriptures, and rightly divide the word of TRUTH, for themselves.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

That same bible says it’s scripture that determines doctrinal truth, not some fallible human that claims infallibility:

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy SCRIPTURES , which are able to make thee WISE UNTO SALVATION through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 3:16 All SCRIPTURE is given by INSPIRATION of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE , for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION in RIGHTEOUSNESS:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

To review: Jesus always points to the scriptures for truth - to search them, and study them, to keep from error.

The Bible makes it clear that scripture gives doctrine, corrects wrong doctrine, and gives instruction in righteousness.

The Bible makes it our individual and personal responsibility to do the work of studying the scriptures, and accurately interpret them.

The Bereans are called noble in scripture, for checking up on what the apostle Paul was teaching them, “to see if it was so”, by searching the scriptures.

It’s the scriptures that are infallible, and we are individually responsible for learning them and rightly dividing them.

No Pope needed.

Well if Catholics have got it so wrong, why can't the rest of you agree on anything? Ya'll can't even agree on whether baptism saves or not. Ya'll been "studying the Scriptures" for 500 years and still can't even agree on something as basic as that.

 

[hedrick]

I think that is an issue even within some of those denominations themselves. From what I understand, for example, some parts of the Anglican church ordain women, but their ordinations are not recognized in other parts of the church.

Yes. That's why I said there are conservative branches of each. But the mainline branches are slowly developing full communion agreements with each other.

 

[Fidelibus]

You're both wrong. IF you agree that there is a range of belief among Protestant churches...and that this is "not that difficult" to understand...

Really? Have you not seen the different beliefs and personal interpretations/ opinions of Protestants of Scripture within this forum? I can recall you and other Protestants arguing what the true meaning is and is not of Scripture! Sheesh! Do you deny that there are Protestants churches that believe in salvation by faith alone (sola fide) and those who do not? Or, Protestant churches who believe in once saved always saved (the doctrine of eternal security) and those who do not? Or those Protestant churches who believe in the rapture and those who do not? Or the Protestant churches who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, and those who believe in a mid-tribulation rapture, and those who believe in a post-tribulation rapture? Or the Protestant churches who believe that one is born again through Baptism and those who do not? And those
Protestant churches who believe Christians are obligated to follow the Ten Commandments and those who do not? And guess what Albion, all of their beliefs come from the Bible! And you want to tell us that we are both wrong believing, as you said...." that there is a range of belief among Protestant churches." So, as you can see, its really not that difficult to understand.

The presumption that is made in this thread that there is but one answer that describes all Protestants does not make sense.

Come on man! to remind you of what Swag356 said...."Most Christians, Catholic or otherwise, are aware that there is theological variation among the different Protestant denominations. I think we all can read between the lines. It's not that difficult." As I just shown above.

But since there doesn't seem to be any willingness to acknowledge this and correct it before going ahead, you might as well carry on and reach the conclusion that you'd already decided upon before this thread was created.

For you to make such a statement like this Albion, would require you to know the going on in my mind. And to do that, would requre you to be omnipotence. Pretty sure you are not, so you have no idea knowing if I had a pre-conceived conclusion or not....... Sorry . I would however, enjoy your thoughts on posts 164-165.

Have a Blessed day!

 

[Fidelibus]

I’ve noticed that Roman Catholics seem to think of Luther as a Protestant pope. He’s not.

Could you please show where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it say's this? Or is this just your fallible, unlearned opinion of what the Catholic Church teaches?

He’s just a Catholic priest that read the book of Romans one day when he was bored, and was astounded to learn just how much doctrinal error there is in the Roman Catholic sect, and protested against it.

Luther’s protestant reformation set in motion the fragmenting of Christianity into thousands of different denominations, all claiming to properly interpret scripture. This totally violates John 17:20, where Jesus Himself prays for unity, as a sign to the unbeliever. Luther’s new religion, named after himself, the Luther-ans, is based on a much different interpretation of scripture, which he also altered based on what he thought scripture should be. He added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28, to make it read “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith ALONE without the deeds of the law. This was to buttress his new philosophy that we are “saved by faith alone.” He also kicked out 7 books of the Old Testament that he didn’t like – Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Judith, and Tobit. These books were all included in the very first printed bible, the Gutenberg Bible, in the century before Luther was born. He also changed the nuanced meaning of other verses to make them more “German,” and more in line with Luther’s thinking of what God should have said. Imagine if some Pope did this! The Protestants would be up in arms, and rightly so. But because Luther did it, and stuck it to the Catholic Church in the process, and he gets a pass? go figure!

As they say, the rest is history.

Yes, you are correct, the over two thousand year old church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Largest Christian Church in the world, with 1.2 Billion members, The Holy Catholic Church is still here. Hmmm... And how long has your church been around, and who started it?

 

[Fidelibus]

Yes. That's why I said there are conservative branches of each. But the mainline branches are slowly developing full communion agreements with each other.

In theology? could you please give some examples of full communion agreements these mainline branches have come too?

 

[chad kincham]

Well if Catholics have got it so wrong, why can't the rest of you agree on anything? Ya'll can't even agree on whether baptism saves or not. Ya'll been "studying the Scriptures" for 500 years and still can't even agree on something as basic as that.

And that doesn’t change the fact that every believer is held responsible for correctly dividing the word of truth.

BTW the RCC doesn’t even lead anyone to salvation.

We aren’t saved by infant baptism, catechism classes, confirmation, and eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood in the Eucharist.
Yes, transubstantiation is bogus.

 

[Swag365]

And that doesn’t change the fact that every believer is held responsible for correctly dividing the word of truth.

BTW the RCC doesn’t even lead anyone to salvation.

We aren’t saved by infant baptism, catechism classes, confirmation, and eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood in the Eucharist.
Yes, transubstantiation is bogus.

You forgot the rosary and confession, friend. Anti-Catholics are becoming lazier and lazier nowadays. What has become of the world.

 

[garol_mar]

The doctrine of infallibility in the catholic church has for all practical purposes irrelevant since only two statements have been made by the popes as infallible, everything else must be considered with gravity and decisions made, hence many Catholics do not follow the churches teaching on contraception for example and see themselves in good standing with God.

In Love
Jay Sea

 

[chad kincham]

Yes, you are correct, the over two thousand year old church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Largest Christian Church in the world, with 1.2 Billion members, The Holy Catholic Church is still here. Hmmm... And how long has your church been around, and who started it?

Let’s expose the constant litany of revisionist history perpetrated by the RCC, and parroted by you:

The false history is that Jesus gave Peter the preeminence over all the apostles, that Jesus made Peter the head of the church and built the church on him, that Peter was the first pope, and that every subsequent pope holds the seat of Peter, via apostolic succession.


This is false, from A to Z - and all that’s needed to disprove the above claims, is the Bible.


Jesus told the apostles that none of them would be above the others - he was not given preeminence:


Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him,and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:


Peter didn’t think he was anything but a fellow elder:


1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am ALSO an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:


Jesus did not tell Peter that the church would be built on him:


Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Jesus spoke of two different rocks: Peter is Petros in the Greek - small rock - and the rock the church is built on is Petra - bedrock.


In the Greek Jesus said: thou art PETROS, and upon this PETRA I will build my church.


The church isn’t built on Peter, or on any individual person, other than Jesus.


Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


Built on the foundation of apostles, plural, and prophets, plural - not on Peter alone.


In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives Peter keys (authority) and the power to bind and loose - but 2 chapters later, when He met the other apostles, Jesus gives the same power of binding and loosing to them, too ( Matthew 18:18 - so Peter has no special authority beyond what the 12 shared.


Peter was not a Bishop, or Pope in the Roman church - ever.


Linus was the first bishop/pope of the Roman church, according to the Orthodox Church.


Peter, the apostle to the Jews, is found in the NT in the Jerusalem church, the Jewish Christian church - not in the gentile Roman church.


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


Paul calls those in the Roman church, gentiles.


Rom 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among OTHER Gentiles.


Scripture says Paul is the apostle to the gentiles, Peter to the Jews (circumcision), so Peter would not be the head of a gentile Roman sect - and wasn’t.


Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospelof the circumcision wasunto Peter;

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)


And when Paul visited Peter 3 years after his conversion on Damascus road, he had to go to Jerusalem, where Peter and the Jewish Christian church was:


Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

 

[chad kincham]

.

 

[hedrick]

In theology? could you please give some examples of full communion agreements these mainline branches have come too?

Full communion isn't just that we admit each other to communion. The churches involved all have open communion, so that's not an issue. It means that we accept each other's officers, so a pastor in one can function in the other.

The primary issue among mainline churches isn't theology, but organization. It's difficult for churches with and without bishops, or with canonical and titular bishops, to do this for organizational reasons. The ELCA is partners with just about all the mainline churches, because they have bishops, but don't have a problem partnering with those who don't. The other churches tend to have agreements only with others in the same group organizationally:

United Methodist (UMC): AME, AME Zion, African Union Methodist, Christian Methodist Episcopal, ELCA, Uniting of Sweden, Union America Methodist Episcopal, Moravian Church

Evangelical Lutheran (ELCA): PCUSA, RCA, UCC, Episcopal, Moravian, UMC

Presbyterian (PCUSA): Korean Presbyterian Abroad, ELCA, Moravian, RCA, UCC

I think over time we'll overcome with issues of organization, and have a more complete set of agreements. The Disciples of Christ are also part of this group, though currently I think they only have full communion with the UCC.

 

[Marc Perry]

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

There are so many posts in this thread that I didn't feel like reading through them all, so forgive me if someone already brought up this point.

It depends on what you define as 'church'. I don't remember Jesus or Paul referring to the 'church' you seem to be speaking of as a physical entity. It was more about being part of the body of Christ, which the believers are able to enter through the forgiveness of sins by grace.

But if you mean the physical 'church', Paul sometimes criticized the churches he founded. So he definitely didn't think they were infallible. Also, Peter was the one who denied Christ three times. So the 'rock' that Jesus founded his church on, according to the Catholics, was suggestively not infallible.

Another note ... I looked up the Greek in the Codex Sinaiticus for the word used for church in Matthew 16:18 compared to Romans 16:11, and they are the same root word, but with different conjugations. I'm not exactly sure what that means. It takes a long time to research things like that since Ancient Greek was a really obscure language and mistranslations abound.

 

[Albion]

Really? Have you not seen the different beliefs and personal interpretations/ opinions of Protestants of Scripture within this forum?

Yes. My comment acknowledged as much, and this causes me to wonder if you misread it.

I can recall you and other Protestants arguing what the true meaning is and is not of Scripture! Sheesh! Do you deny that there are Protestants churches that believe in salvation by faith alone (sola fide) and those who do not?

Actually, there are hardly any which do not. But that's just a footnote that might interest you.

Protestant churches who believe in once saved always saved (the doctrine of eternal security) and those who do not? Or those Protestant churches who believe in the rapture and those who do not?

Again, all of this is only convincing me that you misread my post. Why not read it again and then get back to me?

 

[Fidelibus]

And that doesn’t change the fact that every believer is held responsible for correctly dividing the word of truth.

Where does it say this in the Bible? And what if two believers, supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit have two different views of what the truth is on any given Scripture passage? Who decides which one has the truth and who does not?

BTW the RCC doesn’t even lead anyone to salvation.

We aren’t saved by infant baptism, catechism classes, confirmation, and eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood in the Eucharist.
Yes, transubstantiation is bogus.

Would you agree, this is nothing more than your fallible opinion and could be wrong?

Have a Blessed day!

 

[Fidelibus]

Let’s expose the constant litany of revisionist history perpetrated by the RCC, and parroted by you:

The false history is that Jesus gave Peter the preeminence over all the apostles, that Jesus made Peter the head of the church and built the church on him, that Peter was the first pope, and that every subsequent pope holds the seat of Peter, via apostolic succession.


This is false, from A to Z - and all that’s needed to disprove the above claims, is the Bible.


Jesus told the apostles that none of them would be above the others - he was not given preeminence:


Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him,and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:


Peter didn’t think he was anything but a fellow elder:


1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am ALSO an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:


Jesus did not tell Peter that the church would be built on him:


Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Jesus spoke of two different rocks: Peter is Petros in the Greek - small rock - and the rock the church is built on is Petra - bedrock.


In the Greek Jesus said: thou art PETROS, and upon this PETRA I will build my church.


The church isn’t built on Peter, or on any individual person, other than Jesus.


Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


Built on the foundation of apostles, plural, and prophets, plural - not on Peter alone.


In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives Peter keys (authority) and the power to bind and loose - but 2 chapters later, when He met the other apostles, Jesus gives the same power of binding and loosing to them, too ( Matthew 18:18 - so Peter has no special authority beyond what the 12 shared.


Peter was not a Bishop, or Pope in the Roman church - ever.


Linus was the first bishop/pope of the Roman church, according to the Orthodox Church.


Peter, the apostle to the Jews, is found in the NT in the Jerusalem church, the Jewish Christian church - not in the gentile Roman church.


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


Paul calls those in the Roman church, gentiles.


Rom 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among OTHER Gentiles.


Scripture says Paul is the apostle to the gentiles, Peter to the Jews (circumcision), so Peter would not be the head of a gentile Roman sect - and wasn’t.


Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospelof the circumcision wasunto Peter;

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)


And when Paul visited Peter 3 years after his conversion on Damascus road, he had to go to Jerusalem, where Peter and the Jewish Christian church was:


Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Well, let's see. Outside of you quoting these Scripture passages directly, would you agree, everything else you posted is nothing more then your fallible personal opinion and personal interpretation of said passages that could be in error?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[David1701]

The problem is that he read it wrong and in isolation. So I understand why Catholics point out his errors. And the only time "Sola Fide" is even mentioned in the Bible is in the negative:

"You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone." - James 2:24

And because of this, Luther foolishly called the Epistle of James an "epistle of straw", and wanted it out of his bible translation. It was only his friend Philip Melancthon who talked him out of that. Just thinking that makes him even crazier than a Pope or any Council. Even they didn't denigrate James and put themselves above him. Luther was the first to actually try to dismiss an Apostle in favor of his own theology.

edit: Wait, maybe not the first.. if you want to include Marcion. I'd rather not say he was really part of the Church at all though.

James 2:24 is about real faith resulting in good works. It does not mean that our salvation is dependant upon doing good works; but that, if we are saved, it will manifest in us doing good works. This is in complete agreement with Sola Fide, which is to do with the means by which God saves us, not results of that salvation.

 

[David1701]

I don't think the Pope is the biggest problem at this point. Most of the traditional denominations, including those two, now come in mainline and conservative flavors. I don't see the conservatives being interested in uniting with anyone.

Mainline churches at the moment are largely compatible with each other and with US Catholics. But there are two problems: (1) for the moment they are more interested in full communion agreements than union, and (2) Catholic policies on sex and gender are a problem. The mainline groups can't have full relations with the RCC as long as it doesn't recognize ordinations of the other groups, including women and gays.

Biblical Christians are interested in uniting with other genuine, born again Christians. They are not interested in uniting with those who are hostile to God and his word, e.g. those who support sodomites, the undermining of biblical marriage, those who murder unborn children, or those who undermine biblical gender distinctions.

 

[Albion]

James 2:24 is about real faith resulting in good works.

Exactly. The context is rarely bothered with by people who think that Faith and Works together result in salvation.

It does not mean that our salvation is dependant upon doing good works; but that, if we are saved, it will manifest in us doing good works. This is in complete agreement with Sola Fide, which is to do with the means by which God saves us, not results of that salvation.

Very well said!

 

[JacksBratt]

The Jerusalem church was the very first church, established in Acts chapter 2.

It was the preeminent church for 7 decades until the Romans destroyed it in 70 AD

There were five major churches in the first century, of which the Roman sect is was merely one of five - it had no preeminence.



There’s only one infallible man, and that’s Jesus.

And Jesus, who as the LOGOS is the one who inspired the Bible, tells us to study the scriptures, to search the scriptures, tells Pharisees they do err, not knowing the scriptures, etc.

Catholics are so brainwashed that they think there’s supposed to be some infallible person to tell them what to believe - not accepting the fact that Gods word, in the same bible they use, makes it every believers personal responsibility to actually STUDY the scriptures, and rightly divide the word of TRUTH, for themselves.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

That same bible says it’s scripture that determines doctrinal truth, not some fallible human that claims infallibility:

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy SCRIPTURES , which are able to make thee WISE UNTO SALVATION through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 3:16 All SCRIPTURE is given by INSPIRATION of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE , for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION in RIGHTEOUSNESS:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

To review: Jesus always points to the scriptures for truth - to search them, and study them, to keep from error.

The Bible makes it clear that scripture gives doctrine, corrects wrong doctrine, and gives instruction in righteousness.

The Bible makes it our individual and personal responsibility to do the work of studying the scriptures, and accurately interpret them.

The Bereans are called noble in scripture, for checking up on what the apostle Paul was teaching them, “to see if it was so”, by searching the scriptures.

It’s the scriptures that are infallible, and we are individually responsible for learning them and rightly dividing them.

No Pope needed.

They really need a button for "winner Squared".. Cause that post would be worthy of it.