Is the church infallible in Protestant theology?

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
@garee, I'm having a hard time following the point you're making.

The word father is one of the words the father of lies Lucifer would have mankind believe its all one thing. A warning not to call any man on earth Holy Father helps to divide the two ways the word father is used.

I see that you object to the word "father". If we referred to the early Christian writers as "early Christians" or "early Christian teachers", would you be okay with that?

The word apostle has been altered and a new meaning added .(venerable ones) a hierarchy of men lording it over the none venerable pew sitters .And the hierarchy of mankind is used in more than one of the current denominations or sects.

I see that you object to church leaders "lording it over" other Christians. For clarification: Do you object to having ordained clergy altogether? Or is it the abuse of power that you object to?

I would also suggest that Popes or what the word of God calls a daysman together with the apostle claim they as legion make up what some call ecf's. . . Again a phrase (ecf's )not used in the Bible . It would include the legion 3500 and rising disembodied workers with familiar spirits called by some patron saints . What ever patron saints means ?

Sorry, now I'm really lost. The people commonly called "early church fathers" are a few dozen regular human beings from the first few centuries AD. They weren't disembodied workers with familiar spirits. Can you explain what you have in mind?


Again, I'm having trouble following your overall point. Could you state it clearly in one or two sentences for me?
 
Upvote 0

garee

Newbie
Feb 18, 2013
552
112
✟22,818.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
@garee, I'm having a hard time following the point you're making.

I see that you object to the word "father". If we referred to the early Christian writers as "early Christians" or "early Christian teachers", would you be okay with that?

I see that you object to church leaders "lording it over" other Christians. For clarification: Do you object to having ordained clergy altogether? Or is it the abuse of power that you object to?

Sorry, now I'm really lost. The people commonly called "early church fathers" are a few dozen regular human beings from the first few centuries AD. They weren't disembodied workers with familiar spirits. Can you explain what you have in mind?

Again, I'm having trouble following your overall point. Could you state it clearly in one or two sentences for me?

I am not against clergy more interested in looking to define just what they are assigned to do seeing they have no power in their earthen bodies of death and must rely on our Unseen Holy Father in heaven.
In that way the fathers are just as powerless of the pew sitters .

2 Corinthians 4:7 We have this treasure from God, but we are only like clay jars that hold the treasure. This is to show that the amazing power we have is from God, not from us.

The word father must be rightly divided or understood. The father of lies. . the father of a brood of vipers called fathers would make it all one thing.

There is not one word of encouragement in the Bible that would have us call men fathers . The word is reserved for our one unseen Father when it comes to venerating the Spirit that works in those born again from above. .

The overall point is we are to call no man on earth father or infallible teacher . One is our Good teaching father as Lord and master in heaven

One teaching father

Matthew 23:8-9 (ERV)
“But you must not be calledTeacher.’ You are all equal as brothers and sisters. You have only one Teacher. And don’t call anyone on earth ‘Father.You have one Father. He is in heaven.
.
Christians as apostles today (those sent with the word of God) can plant the seed and water it but are considered nothing (no authority) seeing he does the actual teaching making our hearts soft . If he does not do the work of applying His teaching to our hearts called forming Christ in us then we have not been taught be Him as His way he has designed to seek His approval

Not the approval of men (fathers, kings, princes) that simply opens the way for a Queen of heaven to be squeezed in as if God was a man as us..

We are warned of those who would try and seduce us we do need a man to teach us by usurping the actual teaching ministry of the anointing or teaching one, Christ. We abide in him as he teaches us. Not a brood of vipers called fathers.

Studying the difference on how the word father is used can be beneficial. Its not that I reject using the word "father" but how "brood of vipers" one of the terms Jesus used to define fathers .

Using the word father improperly opposes the gospel in the end making the word of God sola scriptura or as it is written without effect or desolate.

Calling them "early Christians" would be must safer when rightly dividing the word of truth than calling them early church fathers or early kings.

The early is someone trying to set a standard in the new testament by creating a division that is not there.

The church or bride of Christ as one who plants the gospel seed began in the Genesis with Abel the first apostle, martyr. Abel would be considered a father in the proper us of the word.

Disembodied workers with familiar spirits called patron saints is the product of what some a call ECFs mind set assigned a patron saints by the venerable fathers (brood of vipers) who lord it over the non venerable pew sitter who seek the approval of men seen and not our unseen Father in heaven .

The ECF's make up part of the legion(3500 and rising) those that rejects sola scriptura the true reforming authority in any generation.

Venerable mystics another part of the available 3500 . an alternate way to seek help each one is assigned a particular task by the task master called a Pope by some. Called a daysman in the bible.

They call all things written in the law and prophets heresy so that they can keep the laws I heard it through the grapevine oral traditions of men the ECF's
 
Upvote 0

garee

Newbie
Feb 18, 2013
552
112
✟22,818.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
thank you. I hate reading between the lines.
agreed.
a properly formed conscience.
Bible passage please.

Yes properly formed or living daily reforming conscience our daily bread .Two witnesses working as one power. The witness of man the gift of conscience .And the witness of God as it is written as that not seen which does work in those who do believe in a eternal God not seen .

We must be careful how we hear or say we hear God. The father of lies is quick to snatch the seed. Remember God is greater than our conscience. The conscience of mankind is a neutral tool neither good nor evil it is valuable to those who have been born again and are empowered to follow the loving commandments of our Father.

The conscience is simply a judgment hall it either accuses oneself or excuses sometimes five minutes later. .Because it does not accuse it does not mean a person has God's approval .It, the witness of men is the lesser .The witness of God is greater the . . .powerful one.

In that way I would offer the prisons are full of those who followed their own foolish conscience. Some say they have no conscience rather than mankind displays one.

Only Jesus as the Son of man displayed ones conscience perfectly . . "Not as Jesus the Son of man willed but as His Father the one working with the Son . . .providing the power, authority to both will and moves in us, with us making our burden lighter. Giving us a living hope beyond what the eyes see the greater witness .

It would seem we are encouraged to hear and believe without murmuring when offering the gospel. Not like the example of Noah who knew God was a God of mercy and grace and would pour his labor of love on the Ninevites. God despite his kicking and hoping God would bring down fire on the Ninevites moved him according to the pleasure of his will. we should seek the example of Jesus who delighted in doing the will of the father knowing His Father had the power to finish the work that did strengthen the Son of man Jesus .


Thousands of Ninevites heard the word and believed as our living God did work in them to both will and empower them to become sons of God as we are today. Noah wanted to die. I think this shows us emphasizing the law that God is not served by corrupted human hands in any way shape or form . He satisfies all needs by the power of His word.

His word. . . it is Law not theory coming from the conscience of faithless, foolish mankind.

Philipians2:13-14 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

The whole Bible as it is written is the teaching authority of the one author and perfecter of our new born again faith .

1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
There is not one word of encouragement in the Bible that would have us call men fathers . The word is reserved for our one unseen Father when it comes to venerating the Spirit that works in those born again from above. .

The overall point is we are to call no man on earth father or infallible teacher .

In the Bible we find that Joseph, Elijah, Isaiah, and "father Abraham" are all referred to by the term "father."
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
great. So you agree that the scripture passage you provided to prove the Bible is the Authority doesnt talk about the bible.

From human perspective- I would agree, but god is the perspective that matters and He showed it was the bible by making sure it became the bible.

No. Btw, if you would like, prove to me the Gospel of Matthew is inspired text using just Scripture.

the fact it is in the bible is the proof it is inspired text. You limit the hand of God by demanding mens opinion.

Why don't you prove it is not authoritative scripture.

So the Ancient Israelites used the same process of determining was was from God as the NT canonists? Can you provide proof of this?

On this Google is your friend. They were basically the same formats




Well the consensus for the OT is the 2nd century & the OT & NT by the church at end of the fourth century

In the Beginning was the Word. BTW, you cannot sub Bible in for Word.

Well the written Word points to the Living Word. As Peter said it is a more sure word of teaching.

I believe Christ and follow what he commanded us to do.

And to exemplify what He commanded us to do where did you go?

right to the bible!
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
but god is the perspective that matters and He showed it was the bible by making sure it became the bible
can you provide any scripture where Jesus or any prophet talks about a book or what would become the bible?
the fact it is in the bible is the proof it is inspired text.
can you show me in the Bible where it says Matthew is inspired? Can you show me in the Bible where there is a table of contents showing all the books God inspired?
Why don't you prove it is not authoritative scripture.
I can prove it using the Bible. The Bible doesnt claim to be the final authority for.a Christian.

What you are demonstrating is that you cannot prove the bible is the final authority for a Christian by using the bible.
On this Google is your friend. They were basically the same formats
can you provide a link in case some on this thread are incredulous.
Well the written Word points to the Living Word. As Peter said it is a more sure word of teaching.
yes, but it has been demonstrated that the written Word is but a fraction of The Word made flesh.
And to exemplify what He commanded us to do where did you go?
The Church. Just like Jesus commanded.

It seems to me you've chosen the Bible to be the final authority. That is fine. Just dont claim that the bible tells us to do that. You've made a personal non-biblical choice.

The bible is quite clear, The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not the bible. Jesus gave authority to the Church, not the bible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I can prove it using the Bible. The Bible doesnt claim to be the final authority for.a Christian.

What you are demonstrating is that you cannot prove the bible is the final authority for a Christian by using the bible.

So what do you use as your final authority?

The epistles were widely circulated and esteemed as the instructions for the church! Books were not teh norm back them. Scrolls and vellum and parchments were!

Paul declared that teh Apostles were the master builders of teh church with Jesus being the chief cornerstone.

Jesus commanded th Apostles to pass on to obey all teh things that He taught th eoriginal apostles.

They wrote them down, it became a book we call the Bible. If that isn't good enough for you- then There is nothing left to say!

You are free to use whatever you wish (please don't use the bible as you seem it is not authoritative for the church) but I will follow Scripture and we will let god decide who is right or wrong!
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So what do you use as your final authority?
What Jesus said, the Church.
The epistles were widely circulated and esteemed as the instructions for the church! Books were not teh norm back them. Scrolls and vellum and parchments were!
ok
Paul declared that teh Apostles were the master builders of teh church with Jesus being the chief cornerstone.
dont mix the metaphors. Anyway, according to the Bible, Christ and His Chirch are One.
Jesus commanded th Apostles to pass on to obey all teh things that He taught th eoriginal apostles
He sure did.
They wrote them down, it became a book we call the Bible. If that isn't good enough for you- then There is nothing left to say!
According to John, only a tiny fraction of what Jesus taught was written down. Also, the Bible was compiled so that the early Church could have Divinely inspired writings to read at the Divine Liturgy. It was never meant to be the final authority for a Christian.
You are free to use whatever you wish (please don't use the bible as you seem it is not authoritative for the church) but I will follow Scripture and we will let god decide who is right or wrong!
You are free to follow your own man made ideas, I'll follow what Jesus teaches through the scriptures.
 
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

garee

Newbie
Feb 18, 2013
552
112
✟22,818.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No
nothing about the Bible being authoritative hear.
many claim the same thing about the book of Morman.
I do.
?

OK ???But the book of Mormon is an authoritative hear? After all no man can serve two teaching masters as Lord is that why you must seek the approval of the Elders hoping they are of the 144,000?

Many do not abide in the warning before it was closed and sealed with 7 seals .. Now that we can see face to face. . that which is done in part vanishes .

The last book is still Revelation .I do not know of any sect that would dare try and add a new chapter and call it cannon. . . God's living words , God's tradition (sola scriptura) and the oral traditions law of sinful mankind "I heard it through the grape vine" of Mr. Smith and are still separate books.

We know no more in part. it revels the book of Mormon for what it is a private interpretation of by Smith.
 
Upvote 0

garee

Newbie
Feb 18, 2013
552
112
✟22,818.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No Protestant church condem semi Pelagius and Pelagius beliefs
If I am not mistaken Eastern Orthodoxy and some old Catholic
Churches believe that the sins of Adam and Eve do not pass down
Generation to generation to us and say that we pay for our own sins not the sins of our first parents Adam and Eve and we are born neutral
Lutherans and most Protestants churches believe we inherit the sin nature from Adam and Eve and baptism regeneration is when we are forgiven of those sins when we put on Christ in holy baptism

Pelagius was clearly is false prophet. The dying wage of sin we carry out in the earthen bodies is death. Sin leads to death. We understand where the . . ."You will surely not die look at men and live" . The glory of our unseen God who is not a creature left. It will return in the new heavens and earth. (Revelation 21)

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

earthen vessels= powerless dirt (us)

The flesh returns to the dust and the temporal spirit returns to the one Father of all spirit life. Those who have been born again after the incorruptible seed of God's word will rise on the last day and receive the promise a new body not made up of the corrupted rudiments (flesh and blood) of this world

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

The idea that we will not die comes by seeking after the temporal
things seen (lust of eye, lust of flesh false pride) .

Prideful Peter started that kind of "I heard it through the grapevine law of the fathers" that John world not die. . Christ exposed the lie and infallibly informs us that if every time he dispelled a oral tradition of the legion of fathers we would need a bigger world to hold the volumes upon volume that could of been written exposes the lie of the father of lies .

John 21:22-25 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, "He shall not die"; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,036.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
No Protestant church condem semi Pelagius and Pelagius beliefs
If I am not mistaken Eastern Orthodoxy and some old Catholic
Churches believe that the sins of Adam and Eve do not pass down
Generation to generation to us and say that we pay for our own sins not the sins of our first parents Adam and Eve and we are born neutral
Lutherans and most Protestants churches believe we inherit the sin nature from Adam and Eve and baptism regeneration is when we are forgiven of thoses sins when we put on Christ in holy baptism
Original Sin was largely promoted in the West by Augustine and those who came after, therefore it is an idea more widely embraced in the Western Church, and not so widely embraced in the East. For the most part most of us do not need original sin, for we have enough of our own.

I believe that the Anglican Church does condemn Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian Beliefs, and Articles 9-18 widely put forward a position completely out of synch with a Pelagian position, even if it does not name it - not that I am saying that the Anglican Church is Protestant.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What Jesus said, the Church.

so do you believe that what say Paul wrote as instructions for teh church can be overruled by the church later on? And seeing we have so many denominations if one changesan instruction say like allowing women to be ordained as I am debatin on another thread, is it binding on all denominatiopns or just teh one who overruled Pauls instructions to Timothy and Titus in what to do in the churches.

dont mix the metaphors. Anyway, according to the Bible, Christ and His Chirch are One.

Which church? Are ou saying just teh roman Church or individual believers. Are you referring ot an organization or the organism called the Body of Christ?

He sure did.

So if they were preserved by being written down- do you think they became less authoritative?

According to John, only a tiny fraction of what Jesus taught was written down. Also, the Bible was compiled so that the early Church could have Divinely inspired writings to read at the Divine Liturgy. It was never meant to be the final authority for a Christian.

Seems you disagree with Paul and John and the other writers. So you take the Bible just to be a series of nice writings to be read?

You are free to follow your own man made ideas, I'll follow what Jesus teaches through the scriptures.

And yet you said teh bible is not the final authority. No you say you will follow it.

As a Catholic do you believe in purgatory?
Marys perpetual virginity
Mary was conceived with out sin? These are official church teachings but never to be found in SCripture. Th eopposite in fact!
 
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

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
so do you believe that what say Paul wrote as instructions for teh church can be overruled by the church later on?
I believe what Jesus said. Jesus gave the Church authority to bind and loose. He also gave the Church power to anathematize people who dont listen.
And seeing we have so many denominations if one changesan instruction say like allowing women to be ordained as I am debatin on another thread, is it binding on all denominatiopns or just teh one who overruled Pauls instructions to Timothy and Titus in what to do in the churches.
therefore, there can be only ONE Church. I am delighted you brought that up!
Which church
that's a different thread. All you need to do is realize that Scripture doesn't point to the Bible as having final authority. It points to the Church. We can figure out which Church later on.
Are ou saying just teh roman Church or individual believers
according to the Jesus, the Church is Visible, One, and Authoritative.
So if they were preserved by being written down- do you think they became less authoritative?
no. I am saying that the Bible is not the Final Authority for a Christian.
Seems you disagree with Paul and John and the other writers. So you take the Bible just to be a series of nice writings to be read?
I am agreeing with Paul. If you have any Bible passage where Paul says that the Bible is the final authority, now is the time to post it.
And yet you said teh bible is not the final authority. No you say you will follow it.
the Bible is inspired text. If the Bible tells me to listen to the Church, I listen to the Church.
As a Catholic do you believe in purgatory?
Marys perpetual virginity
Mary was conceived with out sin? These are official church teachings but never to be found in SCripture.
before you make this accusation, you must first prove using scripture that ALL TRUTHS concerning the Christian faith must be included in the Bible. Don't bother, scripture doesn't say anything of the sort. Also, purgatory is explicit in scripture, the other are implicit. But this is for another thread.
 
Upvote 0

garee

Newbie
Feb 18, 2013
552
112
✟22,818.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Original Sin was largely promoted in the West by Augustine and those who came after, therefore it is an idea more widely embraced in the Western Church, and not so widely embraced in the East. For the most part most of us do not need original sin, for we have enough of our own.

I believe that the Anglican Church does condemn Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian Beliefs, and Articles 9-18 widely put forward a position completely out of synch with a Pelagian position, even if it does not name it - not that I am saying that the Anglican Church is Protestant.

The phrase Original Sin is not a teaching of the bible .It makes no biblically sense at all. It was coined by those called venerable as oral traditions of men
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OK ???But the book of Mormon is an authoritative hear?
what are you talking about?
After all no man can serve two teaching masters as Lord is that why you must seek the approval of the Elders hoping they are of the 144,000?
is there a question or statement here?
The last book is still Revelation .I do not know of any sect that would dare try and add a new chapter and call it cannon. . . God's living words , God's tradition (sola scriptura) and the oral traditions law of sinful mankind "I heard it through the grape vine" of Mr. Smith and are still separate books.
what?
 
Upvote 0

garee

Newbie
Feb 18, 2013
552
112
✟22,818.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
what are you talking about?
is there a question or statement here?
what?

What?

I would think as a Mormon you are familiar with the law of the fathers or venerable elders oral traditions . I heard it through the grape vine ,the book of Mormon.

No man can serve two different teaching authorities.

Again the last book in the bible the book of prophecy is Revelation .

We are warned of those who would add to the perfect by which we can see our God . . face to face (knowledge to knowledge.) or called faith the unseen to the same unseen . The gospel in its entire entirety.

The book of Mormon as private interpretation of Mr. Smith came much after Revelation the last. Again is there a law missing by which we could know our living God more adequately ?

Why go above that which is written .What's the hope?
 
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

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,507
921
America
Visit site
✟265,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
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?

Yes

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?

A church can teach, from what passages in the Bible say, or what is suggested from many passages on something. But it does not mean the church is infallible in that. As any of us are churches are all fallible to. We can and do misunderstand things from what we read. The Bible is not at fault for that. It has the truth, as evidences show. So the best we can do, and should, would be with praying and searching things out in the Bible, as believers with the Spirit of God to guide, and being sensitive to that. It is hopeless for anyone else.

the Bible is inspired text. If the Bible tells me to listen to the Church, I listen to the Church.

And where in the Bible is it saying to trust all teaching from a church, and at all that it is infallible?
 
Upvote 0