No church doctrine or dogma is perfect. None are nor can they be for they are the works of man.
How about "Jesus Christ is God"?
I think your position self-refutes. If no doctrine or dogma is perfect then this doctrine too is flawed. I think your argument defeats your argument. Nothing more is required.
LOL I think you’re Trolling the thread myself. Many have answered you with good well reasoned answers. Your replies are word games twisting the posters words into some meaning they did not say. I’ll pass.
Thou sayeth it. The other did not.
If some man were to say "all men are liars" -would that make it impossible for the saying itself to be true?
Perhaps, but there is scripture addressing this issue, verifying that all men are liars, with Paul saying in part;
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?I would suggest reading that entire chapter for further contextual understanding.4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
Once that understanding is well enough grasped, it becomes plain also that Paul was acknowledging his own limitations, and the limitations of his own words and himself as a man speaking them, which in itself, just this single chapter alone, very much redeems what cva66snipe said, but which you had dismissed as impossibility.
D --- Your own conclusions are just those, applying the old "if this --then that" but not necessarily arriving anywhere near truth for reason of that logic process (if we can call it logic) having been mis-applied to cva's statement, for it had left God's own "words" to us -- the Holy writ, too entirely out of the picture.
He (cva66snipe) had also said in the same comment Not one of the Disciples or Apostles claimed perfection for they too knew they were human.
providing some additional supporting context for his initial statement which you casually dismissed.
Sorry D, but the scripture refutes all-or-nothing type of positions, as to the workings of man, even His own prophets.
Jonah -- that guy was the real deal, but made his own mistakes, then wrote about those just to show us how lousy he was at his job, with his honesty concerning it all helping us to understand better man's own role and/or position in regards to the Almighty, who Himself is capital "H" Holy,and with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Which being and/or condition is very much unlike mankind, with this looking at man in comparison to God, still includes His own ekklesia, or "the church".
The Word has long since before there was anything like claims of papal infallibility, refuted that precise claim, along with refuting the claims made by men concerning concepts of infallibility for "church" teaching, particularly when those claims arise from within but one branch of the ekklesia which makes these claims for itself, denying that it alone can possibly EVER be in error, but all others of the wider ekklesia are by default said (by Romanists) to be in significant error if daring to begin the slightest objection to --- even the claims of "infallibility". So go figure.
It is written that the Spirit will lead us to all truth and righteousness, but it is not written that we, or any of us, or one particular portion of the church will infallibly follow. You can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink...
To be so utterly infallible as the Church of Rome, (the Roman Catholic Church) claims that it is, even if just restricted to less-than-firmly-delineated "body of teachings") one would need be God or Godlike.
Meanwhile, the spotless Bride which will be His is not some collection of infallible product of teaching 'Magesterium' and church of Rome's own bishop's so-called infallible 'ex-cathedra' proclamations. Christ did not give his own body a ransom for a bunch of teachings about Himself.
I put it that way due to it having been commonly seen here on these pages, for those seeking to protect or promote the idea of infallibility for the [Roman] Catholic or Latin branch of the universal church, the citing of scriptural mention of Christ having for himself "spotless bride". Yet when we look to the members of ANY church body ecclesiastical community, including the [Roman] Catholic one, who can see "spotless"?
Obviously(?) since Christ did not give His own life on the Cross for a bunch of paperwork or writings, but instead gave his life for the redemption of human beings, the retreat into the perceived to be or said to be "spotless" or infallible teachings just does not work. There must be some other way in which the bride will be made spotless. At risk of interrupting the flow of of my pointing towards man's own and "the church's" own limitations, I will digress here turning instead to our only cure. See Isaiah 1:18 Zechariah 13:1, John 13:8-14, John 16:33,
and such as Hebrews 9:12-14(ESV)
he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.Turning now back to one of the problem of "religion", please feel free to list for us all which is regarded from within [Roman] Catholic teachings (teaching of the so-called 'Magesterium') all religious precepts which would need be considered "infallible" and those which are not. THAT would save everyone a lot of time.
Or must each search and sift using their own discernment as to what the teachings (of so-called 'Magesterium') say, what they mean, how far those go -- which ones are to be considered infallible, which are not, which have shadings of meaning that can be helpful but need be understood only in light of qualifying restriction as to time & place of application, etc., etc., somewhat reminiscent of Targum and Mishneh Torah?
Is the church -- God? By some wordings it is said to be "His body" on this earth, with that usage particularly common by those within [Roman] Catholicism, with that "Rome" very much declaring itself to be that body exclusive of every other single human being in the world, with even the "pope", himself the bishop of Rome, also claimed by Romanists to be the "head" of that body.
Yes, at least the church of Rome (the RCC) does say so for itself that it is the body of Christ on earth, but saying that perhaps too loosely also, for at the same time the wider thus truly universal (or catholic as adjective rather than pronoun) church is also understood to be the bride of Christ.
What then? If the church be both God on earth, in effect being Him as in His own presence here in this realm (as some would have it) and then is also the bride of Christ at the very same time --- that would make it out to be that Christ (being God) will be marrying Himself.
See how much trouble can be caused by too careless application of "if this-then that" sort of human logic? But that is what you much did to what cva66snipe said, and to which I now [just previously above] return the same ill-favor to your own criticism of his words, using the very same logic demonstratively (textually shown) which you employed to have reached the rudely dismissive point of telling the man that his statement self-refutes.
His statement would or could indeed self-refute, if we were to be restricting ourselves to only ourselves (persons, human beings speaking here to one another) to be included in consideration as towards needful logical inclusion of who speaks -- and who it is that we could consider infallible.
We do agree that we can consider God the Father to be infallible? And would we not also find some agreement that the scriptures as those be known inclusive of canonized Holy Writ is "true"? Very well then, if we can agree that far, while possibly putting aside "dueterocanon" considerations for some otherdiscussion thread, as those considerations have been gone over in close detail here on these pages more times than I can count.
From Exodus 20, the chapter where is found the Ten Commandments, there is too some additional admonition aimed at the doings and works of man's own hands in their own efforts to properly offer up sacrifice for when they did disobey the laws given to them thru Moses;
22 And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. 23 Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. 24 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. 25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. 26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
What are the doctrines and dogma's created by men but to give place or platform for understanding the bodily sacrifice which was Christ himself as Lamb of the first year without spot or blemish. He offered Himself in our place.
Let us never mistake our now well polished altars (and dogma's?) for being Him.
As useful as teachings can be to lead us to greater understanding of just who He is, and what He (Christ) did, and what that all can mean to both ourselves and to God the Father also, let us not view these additional tools which have been created --- not by God's own hand directly --- but by man in his own responses to Him (including creeds and confessions) and mistake any of those for being the equivalent to the Word of God, whether one regards that Word to be scripture, or scripture and Christ both.