Papal Infallibility

thecolorsblend · Oct 2, 2017

As is typical with Protestants, there seems to be no regard being made here for the distinction between "infallible" and "inspired".

A few weeks ago, Hurricane Harvey wrecked Texas. That observation is infallible. It's absolutely true. But that doesn't make it inspired by God.

The Catholic Church believes the Pope to be infallible when he speaks of matters of faith and morals. Such statements are understood to be supernaturally protected from error. But they are not inspired scriptures or anything. They are, however, infallible.

Phil 1:21 · Oct 2, 2017

thecolorsblend said:
They are, however, infallible.

According to the same people making the declarations. There's a certain convenience in that.

thecolorsblend · Oct 2, 2017

JayW said:
According to the same people making the declarations. There's a certain convenience in that.

I'm sure in your mind you just made a snappy retort.

My point stands. The Church draws a distinction between infallibility and inspiration. Sacred scripture is both; ex cathedra statements by the Pope are only the former.

Phil 1:21 · Oct 2, 2017

thecolorsblend said:
I'm sure in your mind you just made a snappy retort.

Well, then you would be incorrect.

thecolorsblend · Oct 2, 2017

JayW said:
Well, then you would be incorrect.

Ah, so you didn't think it was snappy either? Fancy that...

Phil 1:21 · Oct 2, 2017

thecolorsblend said:
Ah, so you didn't think it was snappy either? Fancy that...

Wasn't intended to be.

iwbswiaihl2 · Oct 2, 2017

thecolorsblend said:
I'm sure in your mind you just made a snappy retort.

My point stands. The Church draws a distinction between infallibility and inspiration. Sacred scripture is both; ex cathedra statements by the Pope are only the former.

Your point from your perspective may stand, but you have no evidence from scripture to support your stand. Its like sitting in a 3 legged chair and trusting it will not tip over when you sit down, the proof is in the pudding. How many times have the infallible popes ever said something and later found out it was wrong while speaking on an occasion from ex cathedra? Do you actually know how many times any pope has ever spoken from this ex cathedra and when ex cathedra actually came to be? 1869 and was never it says technically finished. Ex cathedra is only for statements on doctrine and has only been used twiced so this article says. I had never heard this and found this article about it; When Does the Pope Speak Infallibly?

thecolorsblend · Oct 2, 2017

iwbswiaihl said:
Your point from your perspective may stand, but you have no evidence from scripture to support your stand.

Sola scriptura is your limitation; please don't try making it mine.

iwbswiaihl said:
Do you actually know how many times any pope has ever spoken from this ex cathedra and when ex cathedra actually came to be?

You keep using the term "ex cathedra". I am not sure you know what it means. I'm positive that you think you know what it means. But I don't think you actually know.

iwbswiaihl said:
1869

As has been said (in this thread) (repeatedly) (maybe even in the last couple of pages) the Church often doesn't dogmatically define something until there is need to do so.

In the case of papal infallibility (which is what we're discussing here), the Church Fathers had a pretty clear understanding of the primacy of the Pope. St. Irenaeus, for example, is quoted in my sig explaining the necessity of being in communion with (and in agreement with) Rome.

iwbswiaihl2 · Oct 2, 2017

Sola scriptura is your limitation; please don't try making it mine. Post # 28

I cannot make it belong to anyone, those that adhere to it do so because scripture says it is inspired by God and is profitable for instruction in righteousness and to prove what is the good and acceptable will of God. No one can force instruction or right action on another, the Holy Spirit leads the believers to do the will of the Lord and we try to follow His leadership, it is voluntary. No where can you show where tradition trumps the word of God. When the scripture speaks of tradition, it speaks of the OT laws as given by the Lord and prophets of the OT. Not traditions of men. Big difference. You are free to follow the pope, I am free to follow scripture alone. Scripture does say everyone will give account of their own actions, being free to choose the path is allowed, not the freedom to choose the consequences!

thecolorsblend · Oct 2, 2017

iwbswiaihl said:
Sola scriptura is your limitation; please don't try making it mine. Post # 28

This might help you in the future.

iwbswiaihl said:
because scripture says it is inspired by God

Does it say it's the sole rule of faith? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't say it's the sole rule of faith. And if it isn't the sole rule of faith, a counter-point doesn't necessarily need to come directly from the scriptures. Ergo, asking me to predicate my answer on scripture (and, presumably, nothing else) isn't a burden I accept.

iwbswiaihl2 · Oct 2, 2017

Post #30 Does it say it's the sole rule of faith? Yes, it does, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom 10:17. Does it say thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee, yes it does Ps 119:11, does it say thy traditions have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against you, no, not at all. Does it say faith comes also from tradition specifically no it doesn't say anything at all about faith coming also by tradition, nor that we are to be ruled by tradition. No in both cases, so who does say to follow tradition, post #30,yea! But thanks, I am out of here, content to agree to disagree. Have a good one.

St IWBSWIAIHL stated if you desire to cleanse your way, take heed according to the word of God; Ps119:9 How can a young man cleanse his way?
By taking heed according to Your word.

kepha31 · Oct 2, 2017

iwbswiaihl said:
Post #30 Does it say it's the sole rule of faith? Yes, it does, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom 10:17. Does it say thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee, yes it does Ps 119:11, does it say thy traditions have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against you, no, not at all. Does it say faith comes also from tradition specifically no it doesn't say anything at all about faith coming also by tradition, nor that we are to be ruled by tradition. No in both cases, so who does say to follow tradition, post #30,yea! But thanks, I am out of here, content to agree to disagree. Have a good one.

St IWBSWIAIHL stated if you desire to cleanse your way, take heed according to the word of God; Ps119:9 How can a young man cleanse his way?
By taking heed according to Your word.

Everything you have said about tradition has nothing to do with Tradition as the term is properly used. It can be loosely defined as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history. Here is another definition from the catechism:

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

We don't think the words of Jesus and the Apostles (that did not get recorded) vanished into thin air with no preservation from God. Do you?

iwbswiaihl2 · Oct 2, 2017

kepha31 said:
Everything you have said about tradition has nothing to do with Tradition as the term is properly used. It can be loosely defined as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history. Here is another definition from the catechism:

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

We don't think the words of Jesus and the Apostles (that did not get recorded) vanished into thin air with no preservation from God. Do you?

Neither do I and with the statements you make here I would agree, but it seems you left the part that I disagreed with the other one I posted to. Here is what he said in his post: Sola scriptura is your limitation; please don't try making it mine. Post # 28. And I would ask you if tradition apart from it being a scriptural tradition is of equal value as the written scriptures. Do you believe in Sola scriptura which I will show here stated: Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

kepha31 · Oct 3, 2017

iwbswiaihl said:
Neither do I and with the statements you make here I would agree, but it seems you left the part that I disagreed with the other one I posted to. Here is what he said in his post: Sola scriptura is your limitation; please don't try making it mine. Post # 28. And I would ask you if tradition apart from it being a scriptural tradition is of equal value as the written scriptures. Do you believe in Sola scriptura which I will show here stated: Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

"And I would ask you if tradition apart from it being a scriptural tradition is of equal value as the written scriptures" is a misunderstanding of the relationship between Tradition and Scripture. They complement each other and are inter-related. Without the tradition of the episcopate, we would have no Scripture.

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions). Corrupt pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (but many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus; see, e.g., Matthew 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 A. D. at the council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the apostles.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8 (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all use “tradition")
1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6

Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn’t regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed by “word of mouth.” Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30; John 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition that turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn’t read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.

“Tradition” Isn’t a Dirty Word

iwbswiaihl2 · Oct 3, 2017

kepha31 said:
"And I would ask you if tradition apart from it being a scriptural tradition is of equal value as the written scriptures" is a misunderstanding of the relationship between Tradition and Scripture. They complement each other and are inter-related. Without the tradition of the episcopate, we would have no Scripture.

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions). Corrupt pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (but many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus; see, e.g., Matthew 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 A. D. at the council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the apostles.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8 (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all use “tradition")
1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6

Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn’t regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed by “word of mouth.” Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30; John 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition that turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn’t read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.

“Tradition” Isn’t a Dirty Word

Again, I could agree with everything that you have stated here, with explanation, those things that were spoken by the witnesses as they went forth was the same teachings that they had received from the Lord and the Apostles. 2 Time 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. There were no new revelations as they went, new illuminations of understanding and applications maybe, but nothing that is not in scripture or that had been taught as I stated above.

PanDeVida · Oct 4, 2017

One Of The Elect said:
Dogma introduced by Pope Pius IX. Which is the belief in apostolic authority established from St. Peter by Christ. Which teaches: the only way a Pope could be fallible is if he strays from the foundation which is the Word, right? St. Peter died for the Word. So, my question is why aren't more Catholic Christians outraged with what the Vatican II sect is doing to the faith? Is it not a fallible doctrine to teach unity amongst religions who reject Christ as Lord and Saviour? John14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen Him." I speak to people of different denominations, they really are confused and have hatred for Roman Catholic teachings. Perhaps the demonization of Catholic Christians comes from the Adulteries of the Vatican and its unfaithful Popes, no? So, should we tread lightly with this infallibility doctrine? I mean- after all man is fallible right? I was told in this forum that it is impossible for man to be sinless.
Based on this impossible to be sinless doctrine, do we have a right to hold the Popes accountable when need be? When they are in error ,should we call them out or blindly follow? Should we pray and remain silent when people are being lead astray? Or do both, speak out and pray? Curious observer.

Iwb...,The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

Vatican II’s Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

Based on Christ’s Mandate

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

Some Clarifications

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

Peter Not Infallible?

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.

Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).

Their "Favorite Case"

According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."

Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.

The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.

This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.

One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.

All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).

Catholic.com

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

kepha31 · Oct 4, 2017

Here is a straight forward question for objector's of infallibility.

Was the Council of Jerusalem in Act's 15 infallible?

Be careful, it' a trick question!

bbbbbbb · Oct 4, 2017

kepha31 said:
Here is a straight forward question for objector's of infallibility.

Was the Council of Jerusalem in Act's 15 infallible?

Be careful, it' a trick question!

I would say, if my answer depends on your spelling of Act's (the book is actually Acts), then may answer is quite worthless and will be found so by yourself and other brethren of yours.

So, the trick to your question is that there is no book of Act's and, therefore there was no Council of Jerusalem in Act's 15.

iwbswiaihl2 · Oct 4, 2017

kepha31 said:
Here is a straight forward question for objector's of infallibility.

Was the Council of Jerusalem in Act's 15 infallible?

Be careful, it' a trick question!

I did add this later after seeing again the first statement:Here is a straight forward question for objector's of infallibility. Then shortly you say it is a trick question?

Yes in their conclusion but apart from it being given to them by the Holy Spirit, they were not infallible whatever they would have said, it would have just been their understanding, that is maybe what you would say, but we have the scriptures to verify the answer was Holy Spirit inspired. 1 Thess 5:20-21 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. As Paul said of bereans search the scriptures to prove I was right.

samir · Oct 5, 2017

iwbswiaihl said:
As Paul said of bereans search the scriptures to prove I was right.

The Bereans didn't have the New Testament so they couldn't have possibly searched the scriptures to see if everything Paul taught was correct.

They were Jews and Paul taught that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in their scripture so what they did was search the writings they already accepted to verify Paul's claim about the Messiah. Once they confirmed it, the bible does not say they continued searching to verify everything Paul said. Instead, they humbly submitted to Paul's authority just like Catholics submit to lawfully appointed bishops.

Papal Infallibility

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Well-Known Member

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Well-Known Member

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Well-Known Member

Newbie

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Newbie

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency