Who's infallible? Who's not?

[JesusIsTheWay]

OK, where does it say that IN the scriptures? Trot it out so we can see where the Scriptures claim to be perfect. That is a man made doctrine and not of God. The Scriptures, from Genesis until Revelations, were written by MEN and are so filled with error.

Actually, if you compare the Gospels with the rest of the NT, there are many similarities. What the apostles did was to teach the teaching of Jesus. You have to remember that the apostles didn't just make things up, they taught what they had learned from Jesus Christ. And if Jesus said it is it not perfect? I believe that the apostles wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so the Scriptures are perfect. (Sorry this if this is sort of confusing, I'm really tired...) I'll write more later.

- David -

 

[James the Persian]

I, like Jeff, would have to side with ND on this one. The Scriptures can be imperfect and still inspired. It would be quite possible for the Scriptures to contain, say, a historical error without it affecting their inspiration because they are not the dictated words of God but texts produced by a synergy of fallible man and the inspiration of the infallible God. No man is, in any circumstances whatsoever, infallible. This would include the Pope. It is notable that all Christ's promises with regard to the Holy Spirit's coming are addressed to the Church, not individuals: all the 'you's are plural. To argue, then, that the Holy Spirit will protect any individual from making errors is, in my opinion, unsustainable. It also appears to deny free will. Only God is infallible. Where I would suspect that ND and I would differ is that I do believe that he Holy Spirit will preserve the Church as a whole (i.e. in concensus) from any error, which makes the Church, being the Body of Christ, infallible, but no one member, no matter how saintly, can claim this of themselves.

James

 

[Scuba Pete]

Where I would suspect that ND and I would differ is that I do believe that he Holy Spirit will preserve the Church as a whole (i.e. in concensus) from any error, which makes the Church, being the Body of Christ, infallible, but no one member, no matter how saintly, can claim this of themselves.

We would probably disagree on the "nature" of the ecclesia. I don't see it as a governing authority, but rather a gathering of ALL of the elect. In the first century, there were many churches and no real central authority, though some churches sought after council from others. I am as much a part of the church as my brothers, and promises made to the "church" are made to those comprising the church.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Actually, if you compare the Gospels with the rest of the NT, there are many similarities. What the apostles did was to teach the teaching of Jesus. You have to remember that the apostles didn't just make things up, they taught what they had learned from Jesus Christ. And if Jesus said it is it not perfect? I believe that the apostles wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so the Scriptures are perfect. (Sorry this if this is sort of confusing, I'm really tired...) I'll write more later.

Actually David,

Jesus spoke Aramaic, and with the rare exception, we are reading a translation of the Apostle's translations. This is why there are some variations in the accounts of the same event.

Paul made a point that we should emulate him AS he emulated Jesus, and we should honor that request. Jesus took the entire law and condensed it to just two laws. Throughout the New Testament we see how they come to grips with this concept, and how some "doctrines" are left behind as the reality of these two laws manifest themselves.

 

[nutshell]

2 Timothy 3:16. "All scripture is given by inspiration by God..."

Scripture, such as the Bible, is given by God. I don't see how mistakes can be made between the inspiration the prophet receives and the recording of scripture. Ultimately, it is from God.

Now, I accept that since the recording of scripture it has been translated, changed, and interpreted by men who were not prophets. That's why there are so many different churches today and it was Joseph Smith's concern for this that led him to ask God which was right.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well again... what passage supports the infallability of the Scriptures? Show me, or possibly accept that this is MAN'S doctrine, and not from God!

 

[nutshell]

Well again... what passage supports the infallability of the Scriptures? Show me, or possibly accept that this is MAN'S doctrine, and not from God!

I showed you that scripture is inspired from God and now we have different interpretations of what that means. Any attempt to satisfy you with an appeal to the scriptures will be ineffective because you believe the scriptures are doctrine's of man and not from God. So, in essence, if I show you a scripture that says: Behold, the scripture are from God and are perfect and never change, yada, yada, yada. You'll say, man wrote that, not God, and we'll be back to square one.

 

[James the Persian]

I showed you that scripture is inspired from God and now we have different interpretations of what that means. Any attempt to satisfy you with an appeal to the scriptures will be ineffective because you believe the scriptures are doctrine's of man and not from God. So, in essence, if I show you a scripture that says: Behold, the scripture are from God and are perfect and never change, yada, yada, yada. You'll say, man wrote that, not God, and we'll be back to square one.

I don't think that you are understanding ND's position at all. He does, as far as I know, believe that the Scriptures are from God, it's just that God inspired but did not dictate them. Inspiration does not imply infallibility because whilst God might be infallible the author He inspires most certainly is not and therefore could err. I concur with ND that you will not find a single Scriptural reference that claims the Scriptures are infallible and I'm certain that neither of us believes that the Scriptures are 'doctrines of man and not from God', as you put it.

ND,

You are incorrect to think that I believe the Church is the heirarchy. I most certainly do not. The Church is the whole Body of Christ, lay and clergy. It is this Body, in concensus, that I believe to be infallible and not any council of bishops or priests, however large. It is perfectly possible (and, indeed, has happened) for large numbers of clergy to fall into heresy. We do disagree on just who constitutes the Church, undoubtedly, but that wasn't my point. I'd be surprised if you believed in the infallibility of the Church as I can't see how it fits in with 'Invisible Church' ecclesiology. If you do, then I'd be interested to hear why.

James

 

[Scuba Pete]

I showed you that scripture is inspired from God and now we have different interpretations of what that means. Any attempt to satisfy you with an appeal to the scriptures will be ineffective because you believe the scriptures are doctrine's of man and not from God. So, in essence, if I show you a scripture that says: Behold, the scripture are from God and are perfect and never change, yada, yada, yada. You'll say, man wrote that, not God, and we'll be back to square one.

So, in a "nutshell",

There is no place where the scriptures claim to be "perfect", and instead of dealing with that and how God's Spirit of power works through them in spite of any issues, you have chosen to put the whole problem back on me and my supposed beliefs. Clear as mud!

So what is the Spirit's role in your view of scripture?

 

[Scuba Pete]

ND,

You are incorrect to think that I believe the Church is the heirarchy. I most certainly do not. The Church is the whole Body of Christ, lay and clergy. It is this Body, in concensus, that I believe to be infallible and not any council of bishops or priests, however large. It is perfectly possible (and, indeed, has happened) for large numbers of clergy to fall into heresy. We do disagree on just who constitutes the Church, undoubtedly, but that wasn't my point. I'd be surprised if you believed in the infallibility of the Church as I can't see how it fits in with 'Invisible Church' ecclesiology. If you do, then I'd be interested to hear why.

Hey James,

First thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Where do you derive your belief that the church is "perfect". This passage teaches us that perfection is yet to come:

I Corinthians 13:8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. NIV

There are also many references to churches in Revelations which are ANYTHING but perfect. So no, I don't buy that the church is "perfect".

BTW, I am not familiar with the term; 'Invisible Church' ecclesiology. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

[James the Persian]

Hey James,

First thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Where do you derive your belief that the church is "perfect". This passage teaches us that perfection is yet to come:

I Corinthians 13:8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. NIV

There are also many references to churches in Revelations which are ANYTHING but perfect. So no, I don't buy that the church is "perfect".

BTW, I am not familiar with the term; 'Invisible Church' ecclesiology. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I don't believe that the Church is perfect (at least, not the Church Militant, only the Church Triumphant), but I do believe that the Church, in concensus, is infallible - i.e. I believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church as a whole from teaching error. Perfection is not the same as infallibility and the infallibility of which I speak is limited. It doesn't mean, for instance, that nobody in the Church can do wrong. That would be perfection.

What I meant by Invisible Church ecclesiology is the idea, common amongst Protestants, that there is no one visible Church founded by Christ but that the Church is comprised of all those who truly believe in Christ regardless of their 'denomination'. The reason I can't see such an idea fitting in with Church infallibility is that it either means that the Invisible Church must be very small indeed given the number of doctrinal disputes or that the Church is very large but that said Church is not protected from error by the Holy Spirit. It's also rather hard to see exactly how such a Church could ever come to a concensus on anything.

James

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't believe that the Church is perfect (at least, not the Church Militant, only the Church Triumphant), but I do believe that the Church, in concensus, is infallible - i.e. I believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church as a whole from teaching error. Perfection is not the same as infallibility and the infallibility of which I speak is limited. It doesn't mean, for instance, that nobody in the Church can do wrong. That would be perfection.

I understand WHAT you believe, just not WHERE you derive the belief from.

What I meant by Invisible Church ecclesiology is the idea, common amongst Protestants, that there is no one visible Church founded by Christ but that the Church is comprised of all those who truly believe in Christ regardless of their 'denomination'. The reason I can't see such an idea fitting in with Church infallibility is that it either means that the Invisible Church must be very small indeed given the number of doctrinal disputes or that the Church is very large but that said Church is not protected from error by the Holy Spirit. It's also rather hard to see exactly how such a Church could ever come to a concensus on anything.

I see,

how do you view the first century churches, which were largely independent and as I pointed out in Revelations, full of error? BTW, I believe that there are many small communities of believers and that they are not invisible. As for "militant" and "triumphant" aspects of the church, I am not sure why we need those demarcations. We have already triumphed (at the cross) and until the second coming, Jesus' church will ALWAYS be viewed as militant!

 

[James the Persian]

Where I get the belief that theChurch is infallible is a combination of Scripture (Her being the pillar and ground of the Truth and the Body of Christ etc.) and Holy Tradition, the latter of which you certainly won't accept.

The distinction between Church Militant and Church Triumphant is a simple one. The Church Militant is all of us in the Church here on earth, the Church Triumphant the saints who are with God. As for the first century churches, they weren't completely disconnected. There was the Council of Jerusalem and the Apostles and others moved around the Empire from church to church. Times were undoubtedly harder though. I'd just like to point out that it is the Church and not any one church (capitalisation deliberate) that is infallible. Some of what you have written appears to confuse the two, though I admit I may be misreading your intentions.

James

 

[michel]

I showed you that scripture is inspired from God and now we have different interpretations of what that means. Any attempt to satisfy you with an appeal to the scriptures will be ineffective because you believe the scriptures are doctrine's of man and not from God. So, in essence, if I show you a scripture that says: Behold, the scripture are from God and are perfect and never change, yada, yada, yada. You'll say, man wrote that, not God, and we'll be back to square one.

Quite, and NetDoc would be right. Did God himself pen the bible ? of course not; the second you bring in a human into the equation, you have imperfection. See you back at square one, do not collect $200 do not go past 'go'.........

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'd just like to point out that it is the Church and not any one church (capitalisation deliberate) that is infallible. Some of what you have written appears to confuse the two, though I admit I may be misreading your intentions.

Well then,

Since I don't see anyone in scriptures making that distinction, I'll assume that I am in fine company.

BTW, you are right about "tradition"... I agree with Jesus about how they tend to replace God's commands!

Mark 7:5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"
6 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." NIV

Jesus reduced us down to two commandments once you become a Christian: Love God and Love Everyone Else! All else is pretty much opinion.

 

[Quiddity]

Couple things to clear up. I don’t think I’m in disagreement with James and ND regarding the errors in Scripture. In earlier posts I questioned ND because I was trying to reconcile his Sola Scripturalist view with his view to accept things that are not in the Bible or are implicit (Canon, Trinity, monogamy, etc.). Although we may agree on matters that are unclear or are not in the Bible I think ND accepts Tradition but just doesn’t know he does. So I disagree with James that ND doesn’t accept or follow Tradition. I would be surprised to read that James and I disagree as to the source of Tradition.


It will be difficult to compress reasons, history, bible verses into one post and will most likely bring up more objections or questions. In post #15 I provided a link to understanding how catholics know what is infallible: [url="http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18554&page=6&pp=10&highlight=Infallibility"]Catholic Church has never changed Doctrine[/url] Post #59


From a Biblical perspective we use the following. Keep in mind that these verses only build up a ground work for Catholic understanding of the gift of infallibility:

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, [Aramaic brings this to light better] with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.


And from a more collegial stand we show The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (take a peek into how doctrinal matters were settled). Although it is to be noted that Matt 16 gives authority to bind and loose to all the apostles [bishops] and infallibility is extended to Church magisterial in union.

Also:
Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively evangelize the world.


From a historical perspective here are a few:


St. Fulgentius of Ruspe
That which the Roman Church, which has the loftiest place on the earth, teaches and holds, so does the whole Christian world believe without hesitation for their justification, and does not delay to confess for their salvation.


Cyprian of Carthage [256]
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)


Pope Victor I [189-198]
"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate..." Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).


St. Maximus the Confessor [AD 650] who said that the Apostolic See of Rome:
... from God the Incarnate Word Himself as well as all the holy Councils, according to the sacred canons and definitions, has received and possesses supreme power in all things and for all things, over all the holy churches of God throughout the world, as well as power and authority of binding and loosing. For with this church, the Word, who commands the powers of heaven, binds and looses in heaven. [Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, in pages 91: 144]


Pope Gregory [590-604]:
As to what he [the primate of Byzacena in Africa] says about being subject to the Apostolic See: if any fault be found in the bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it . [Epp. IX, 12. PL 77, 957-8]


The above only show that the Church is subject to the See of Rome [The Pope] and not necessarily collegiality. Although there is literally hundreds of documents to show collegial authority and infallibility. This would be more of interest to Roman Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox/Anglican dialogues. I’m sure many Christians will agree that: 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. [Catholic Answers] And what I provided above is a small snip of how the Church understood this task.


~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

I posted a response to a good Eastern Orthodox friend of mine in another forum. In it I talked about the parallels of the ONESS that God has always wanted in relation to the Catholic position of Authority/Infallibility. To be fair, he replied to my post and here is the dialogue for those who wish to check it out: [url="http://www.aboutcatholics.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=570&start=20&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight="][Orthodoxy] Papal Authority [/url]

Ted,

There is something I’ve been meaning to share with you. This came to me a while back while driving on one of Southern California’s busiest freeway (the 5 freeway). Come to think of it, this is actually where I have some of my deepest thoughts. I completely block out the noisy world around me and dwell in my thoughts.

The question that popped into my head was: Is it unusual for God to give a single man authority over the whole of His people? Or is it more common to see that authority is equally dispersed within a group of men?

These questions are important to me because God did many things to shape the way or prepare His people for what was to come; such as circumcision for baptism, bread from the desert to bread of life (The Eucharist), and stopping Abraham from sacrificing his son so God can sacrifice His Son (Christ). There are several examples of this that I’m sure you will see and agree with. This parallel also exists with Peter, being the strongest, one that I’m sure you’re aware of; the keys in relation to the keeper of the palace in the Old Testament. (Isaias 22, in which "the key of the house of David".)

But you can take this even further and look at several examples where God gives authority to one man over His people. This last statement doesn’t prove the supremacy of authority given to Peter, but it sure shows God functioning in such a way. Most all major doctrines that we both believe in, Ted, have some sort of parallel in the OT. But it appears that the Orthodox Church seems to either minimize or misunderstand the parallels with Peter. The misunderstanding is much easier to deal with because an honest conversation with plenty of clarification may help the Orthodox see the office of Peter in the OT. But when assuming an Orthodox said, “Well I can see how God gave authority to Moses, for example, but that doesn’t mean Peter had such authority.” This is difficult for me to grasp because with every doctrine we both believe in God elevates what was (mana in the desert, circumcision, Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice, etc.) to what is (bread of life [Eucharist], baptism, Christ’s sacrifice, etc.) We do not see Him minimizing practices like circumcision, but rather He elevates them to a supernatural state. He makes them even more special, from a physical circumcision to a circumcision of the heart, for example. Either God decided to not give Peter authority over the whole of His people like He did in the OT (Moses, Abraham, etc)...OR He does address it by giving Peter supremacy of honor with equal authority shared with the rest of the bishops, as you say this is the case. Which means He did not elevate it like He did everything else. He simply mimicked the OT, with no change, no elevation. Why would He not do it with Peter but do it with everything else like what I noted above?
Only the Catholic position seems to satisfy God’s way of doing things in the OT. Did God ever give more than one person authority? Of course He did, but my only point is that God consistently appears to like going through one person and uses him as final authority on matters that deal with His people. As an example we can look at the OT in Exodus 4:14. Here we begin to see God’s method of hierarchically positioning men. He tells Moses “You will be as God.” Positioning him directly above Aaron and all the people. We see God doing things like this all through out the OT with different men. Did He drop the ball in the NT and decide “I’m going to make all equal”. It seems to me like God knows us too well. He understands the power behind using one person vs. using the college of bishops alone. Not that the college of bishops can’t produce an infallible proclamation for the body of believers. For history shows they have done this. But history also shows the college of bishops disagreeing right down the middle. 50% say one thing and 50% say another (the numbers are not accurate.) My point is that they couldn’t come to a conclusion, just like they couldn’t in the council of Jerusalem in Acts. Peter spoke and everybody stayed silent and he settled the matter. If you’re honest about it, Ted, you’ll at least conclude that God did use one person often in the OT. So my questions to you are: Why do you think God would stop using the Moses’ of the OT in the NT? If God just intended for Peter to be honored, where is the elevation in that, just like He did all the other doctrines in the NT? Maybe Peter was just the exception, or maybe Catholics are right to view him as they do.

~Victor



I only provided this to give another reason for the need of infallibility in the person of Peter and the Apostles.

 

[Quiddity]

Well then,

Since I don't see anyone in scriptures making that distinction, I'll assume that I am in fine company.

BTW, you are right about "tradition"... I agree with Jesus about how they tend to replace God's commands!

Mark 7:5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"
6 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." NIV

Jesus reduced us down to two commandments once you become a Christian: Love God and Love Everyone Else! All else is pretty much opinion.

Tell me ND, are these "traditions of men"?

2 Thes. 2:15 - Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.


1 Cor. 11:2 - I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.


2 Tim 1:13-14 - Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us


In the following verses you can see that Tradition was used for teaching and St. Paul praised the early Christians for keeping the oral deposit of faith. The most basic historical fact of Christianity is that the first generation Christians only had oral Tradition as their source of the Christian faith. The Canon was not assembled until the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. It was Holy Tradition (guided by the Holy Spirit) that allowed and guided the bishops to assemble which books belonged and which didn’t.


``Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Tell me ND, are these "traditions of men"?

2 Thes. 2:15 - Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.


1 Cor. 11:2 - I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.


2 Tim 1:13-14 - Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us


In the following verses you can see that Tradition was used for teaching and St. Paul praised the early Christians for keeping the oral deposit of faith. The most basic historical fact of Christianity is that the first generation Christians only had oral Tradition as their source of the Christian faith. The Canon was not assembled until the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. It was Holy Tradition (guided by the Holy Spirit) that allowed and guided the bishops to assemble which books belonged and which didn’t.


``Victor

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to Victor again. The man's got a point! :clap

 

[Scuba Pete]

Victor,

I have no problems with "traditions", and in fact I have pointed out that no one should "pass judgement" on these kind of things.

However, one should NOT teach tradition as being a commandment of God. Or do you disagree with my Lord on this?

As for your handling of Jesus' response to Peter's confession, I disagree with your analysis of the event. The petra (pebble) was Peter, but the ROCK was his confession: that Jesus is the Christ. Rely on the former ONLY AS it reflects the latter! In fact check out just a few verses later:

Matthew 16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." NIV

I guess your point is that the church is built on Satan??? No, I don't think Jesus built his church on Peter. He wanted something a bit more stable, and there IS no aramaic that clears this up for anyone.

But in reality, the NT is filled with churches doing things wrong and for all the wrong reasons. It is also full of references to apostles screwing up as well. Only Jesus is perfect: the Apostles tell us this.