INFALLIBILITY’S FATAL FLAW

White Horse Inn ^ | February 17, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

[DeprogramLiberalism]

Roger that.

[DungeonMaster]

The bible is very straightforward about anyone calling himself a prophet and being wrong.

[Diamond]

That's funny, because Vatican I taught (infallibly, BTW):

.....

Looks like some pretty clear qualifications to me. The Pope has to be (a) speaking in his supreme authority as "Pastor and Teacher of All Christians," (b) he has to be defining (that is, teaching definitively), (c) to the whole church, (d) a doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Is that your interpretation of what Vatican I taught? Is one's individual infallibility in interpreting that document as common as dirt and available to anyone who has said the magic words before reading Vatican I for themselves?

Cordially,

[Rashputin]

The real question is, what is the Protestant definition infallibility they claim the Pope does not have.

It obviously does not fit with the understanding of the word in common use throughout history. Apparently the is a peculiar special decoder ring definition of the word that Protestantism says applies to each Protestant individual but somehow not to any individual Pope or other Catholic.

Catholic doctrine on Papal infallibility is clear, long established, profusely documented, and the subject of numerous books by Catholic theologians and others, both pro and con.

More to the point is how any Protestant can argue against any form of Catholic infallibility, Papal or other, when all of Protestantism is based on individual interpretation of any and all Scripture.

Seeing Protestants focus so intently on attacking Catholics and Catholicism rather than on bringing home the 99 of their own sheep who are so obviously widely scattered begs the question, how can folks who claim to be able to infallibly interpret Scripture ignore so much of it ?

[CynicalBear]

>>Scripture simply describes the Church as a whole imasculine terms and never in feminine terms.<<

>>Church = Israel + Gentiles = "one new man" = "one body"<<

You really need to think about what you write. Look at your two statements above. You claim that the "church" has to be male. Then you claim that Israel and Gentiles are the "church" the "one new man". Now, we KNOW that Israel was the wife of God. One would presume female unless you want now to go into homosexuality or trans-gendered. But that's not the only problem with your scenario. God also said He would restore Israel as His wife.

Isaiah 54:6 "For the LORD has called you, Like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, Even like a wife of one's youth when she is rejected," Says your God. 7 "For a brief moment I forsook you, But with great compassion I will gather you.

So God promised to bring back His wife but she has become a male per your analysis.

>>Yeast always represents evil in Scripture.<<

Matthew 13:33 He spoke another parable to them, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened."

So now the Kingdom of Heaven represents evil? In your previous post you simply dismissed this verse without explaining other than to claim it clashed with other references to yeast. Christ said "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven" meaning it changes the whole. How can that be a negative in this sense?

Like I said in my last post. Your post and your ebook are rife with error. It would be impossible to cover them all in one post or even this forum. My suggestion would be for people to totally ignore both your posts and your ebook.

[Diamond]

The real question is, what is the Protestant definition infallibility they claim the Pope does not have.

No, the question is the one I asked.

It obviously does not fit with the understanding of the word in common use throughout history. Apparently the is a peculiar special decoder ring definition of the word that Protestantism says applies to each Protestant individual but somehow not to any individual Pope or other Catholic.

Catholic doctrine on Papal infallibility is clear, long established, profusely documented, and the subject of numerous books by Catholic theologians and others, both pro and con.

I'll ask the question in a different way. Is your interpretation of that Roman Catholic doctrine infallible?

Cordially,

[Rashputin]

Your question assumes that I accept a Protestant definition of the word infallible, a definition not in evidence, and a definition that obviously is used to mean one thing when in the context of all individual Protestant interpretations of Scripture but something different when applied to a Catholic individual.

Therefore, the question is exactly as I stated it, what is the Protestant definition of infallibility that makes it possible to claim infallible individual interpretation of Scripture while at the same ruling out infallible individual interpretation of Scripture ?

Get back to me when you've polled the tens of thousands of different Protest ant groups and they've all agreed to a proper definition.

[DeprogramLiberalism]

>>>So God promised to bring back His wife but she has become a male per your analysis.<<<

I simply revealed what Scripture says about Israel + the Gentiles. It wasn’t me that said that the Church = Israel + Gentiles = “one new man” = “one body” in Ep.2.15b-16. God did - go argue with Him.

I explained Mt.13.33 in my first post. Why do I have to explain it again?

Again, Revelation tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is the bride, not the Church, and Galatians tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is also our mother (of the Church - her son). No errors.

But by all means, go ahead and cling to your tradition...

[CynicalBear]

>>I simply revealed what Scripture says about Israel + the Gentiles. It wasn’t me that said that the Church = Israel + Gentiles = “one new man” = “one body” in Ep.2.15b-16. God did - go argue with Him.<<

What you evidently didn't take into account is that is that is during this age of grace which ends with the fullness of the Gentiles.

<Romans 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

>>I explained Mt.13.33 in my first post.<<

NO, you didn't. You simply dismissed it.

>>Again, Revelation tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is the bride, not the Church<<

You also ignored who it is that inhabits that New Jerusalem.

>>and Galatians tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is also our mother (of the Church - her son).<<

And I showed you that "Greek - hyiós - equally refers to female believers (Gal 3:28). [http://biblehub.com/greek/5207.htm]

And you contend that Israel turned from a female wife to a male.

[Diamond]

Your question assumes that I accept a Protestant definition of the word infallible,

No, my question does not assume a Protestant definition of the word infallible. Use Campions' definition, if you like. Is Campion's definition correct?

Cordially,

[Rashputin]

That definition doesn't match Protestant use of the word therefore what are we talking about since infallibility isn't the real issue, only the word chosen to make some other point while pretending infallibility is the issue ?

Where in Scripture is infallible individual interpretation of Scripture spelled out so clearly " a child can understand it" rather than clear only to those who prefer to interpret it one way or another ?

Following any such clear statement, what is the clear explaination in Scripture of how while an unlimited number of different interpretations are all equally infallible, that unlimited number of possible infallible interpretations does not include any interpretation held by a sitting Pope or any other Pope throughout history ?

[DeprogramLiberalism]

>>>NO, you didn't. You simply dismissed it.<<<

I did not "simply dismiss it". I explained it. And frankly, I am tried of you ignoring my explanation and claiming that I didn't.

>>>You also ignored who it is that inhabits that New Jerusalem.<<<

I also addressed this. Again, you are becoming very tiring. I am beginning to think that you have a comprehension problem.

>>>And I showed you that "Greek - hyiós - equally refers to female believers<<<

Of course it includes female believers, but the Church is symbolically represented as a whole as a "son". By your tortured logic, no men could be included in the bride of Christ, even if it was the Church - nonsense. (Of course, Scripture flat-out tells us that the heavenly Jerusalem is the bride, not the Church.)

>>>And you contend that Israel turned from a female wife to a male.<<<

I did no such thing. I simply pointed to Scripture that flatly states that:

Church = Israel + Gentiles = "one new man" = "one body"

Again, your argument is not with me, but with God. Good luck with that...

[DeprogramLiberalism]

Sorry, my last post was to CynicalBear not Diamond.