Are you infallible?

One Fold ^ | December 10, 2013 | Brian Culliton

[paladinan]

It is without question Satan that breeds the kind of deception that catholic ‘theology’ brings about.

Oh, for crying out loud...! Do you want to play *that* old game? All right... let me try that:

"It is without question Satan that breeds the kind of deception that Protestant ‘theology’ brings about."

There. Isn't that fun? :) Or would you rather have a reasonable discussion? (No pressure, mind you...)

Truth always helps every conversation about God’s word.

I daresay. That's why any sensible person rejects the truthless and man-made ideas of "sola Scriptura" and "sola fide", among other fundamentalist errors.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

“baptism does also now save us.” KJV

What do all Protestants teach regarding the necessity of baptism for salvation?

[paladinan]

New fiction???

"New" for Luther's time, at least, yes. I'll admit, it's at least 400 years old, by this point...

That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:7-9, KJV)

I really do wonder what happens to logic, when some people try to proof-text the Scriptures...

Let's take your quote in the light most favorable to your view, and assume that faith WITHOUT ANY WORKS AT ALL saves us (though "works" refers to "works of the Law"--i.e. works of the old Mosaic covenants, the 613 Mitzvot--as St. Paul himself makes abundantly clear in numerous places; and St. James flatly condemns this silly "faith without works saves us" idea in James 2:24). Logically, you'd have proven (given those generous imaginary assumptions, above) that works do not save. You'd not have come CLOSE to proving that faith ALONE saves. There are loads of things in life that are in addition to "works", if you want to use the artificially narrow Protestant view (otherwise, faith itself IS a "work"--you have to *believe*... which is a verb, last time I checked).

What about LOVE, for example? Doesn't 1 Corinthians 13 say that faith without love leaves a man useless, "nothing"? That doesn't sound good.

What about PERSEVERANCE? Jesus says (twice, in the same Gospel!) that "he who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 10:22 and 24:13); so will faith without "enduring to the end" save anyone? Jesus doesn't seem to think so.

But beyond that: you'd still have the weighty burden of proving that faith *ALONE* (did you catch the word "alone"?) saves. You haven't even started trying to do that.

[FourtySeven]

Ok thanks for staying on point at least.

Let's make this real simple.

I thought the arguments put forth in my previous posts were simple. But I'm willing to listen to/read what you have to say as long as it stays on point. Which it does.

1. God's infallible word is recorded in scripture just as He directed it to be.

2. The Holy Spirit was given to born again individual to be able to infallibly determine what those words mean.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.

Now, if the Holy Spirit was given us that we might "understand" would you still suggest it's fallible? Would you still suggest it's unnkowable? Would you still say it's "by human authority" when scripture says those who have been born again have been born of the Spirit and it is He would gives us understanding?

What you have done here, whether you realize it or not, whether you admit it or not, is object to Premise 4 of argument 1. Which is fine. You have to object to that premise in order to remain a Christian and attempt to save sola scriptura from the logical problem illustrated in the conclusion of argument 1.

You've basically said that Premise 4 is false because it's a straw man argument. That is, there is another source of infallibility not being considered in that construct, to whit: the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit, when He is present in the believer, protects Scriptural interpretation from error and thus, there is no reason for a human authority at all. So again, you reject premise 4. I think this is a fair representation of what you are saying here. If not, stop me here so we can proceed with agreement elsewhere. But if this is a fair representation then let's proceed.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's basically claiming the charism of infallibility for yourself. You are saying, whether you wish to admit it or not is irrelevant, that you now have the charism of infallibility (when it comes to reading and understanding Scripture correctly). You have this charism because the Holy Spirit is in you, and He guides you personally to all truth (in the Scriptures). That's what you're saying. But that's ALSO the very definition of the charism of infallibility!

So you're claiming that for yourself, with no way to verify it (other than to read and interpret Scripture the exact way you do of course which is a self-serving "test") but yet deny anyone else can have the same or even lesser gift namely the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him.

So you acknowledge that it's the Holy Spirit that protects one from theological error, but insists its only you (and those like you) who have this gift. The Popes can't though, because they disagree with what you believe. And you have the Holy Spirit.

This is actually all well and good but if this is indeed your reasoning then you haven't disproven that the Pope and his Bishops don't have the charism all you've done is just insist, for an unproveable reason, that you have it and they don't.

This is all very well and good but again, what proof do you have that's outside yourself, and outside your interpretation of Scripture, that you have the charism and they don't? It's all very circular for you but not for the Church because the Church doesn't deny the charism of infallibility, she doesn't deny that indeed the Holy Spirit teaches us all truth, she just says it's through a particular means that employs mankind. You reject that last notion (that the Holy Spirit teaches through mankind) but yet have no proof no reason to reject that, other than what you claim is the Holy Spirit's guidance as you read Scripture.

You have effectively recognized the weakness of the argument in the OP but your solution to it solves nothing. All you've done, really, is substitute the Holy Spirit for your own conclusions. It's easy to *claim* the Holy Spirit is your teacher but there is no proof of that if one rejects, by other words, the very gift He could give to assure that, which is the charism of infallibility.

You can't have it both ways in other words. You can't say "the charism of infallibility doesn't exist" and yet also claim "I know this because the Holy Spirit taught me so through the Scriptures". Those two statements are incompatible.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
The glaringly broad-brush nature of your statement aside[...]

[roamer_1]
I don't think it to be a broad brush at all -

Really? You wrote: "In the light of all the forgeries and insertions committed by the Roman church[...]", right? If you think that this isn't a general waving of hands and saying, "Everyone, behold all the forgeries and insertions committed by the Roman church[sic]!" (without so much as specifying the alleged forgeries and insertions, much less proving that the Catholic Church was somehow responsible--i.e. "committed" them), then I don't know what to tell you. That statement is simply dripping with anti-Catholic bias; it's very rich in insinuation, and virtually empty of content. If you'd like to be more credible, you'll need to be more specific, on all counts; general "smears" such as this statement make for amusing rhetorical theater, but they simply won't do, in a logical argument.

Look into the known insertions and forgeries, and it is easy to conclude the motive.

If one starts out by assuming that one's opponent is a demon, then yes... "concluding" a motive would be trivially easy. The conclusion would be invalid, of course... but very easily reached.

That it is institutional in nature goes without saying too.

Who's denying that? I, for one, don't find anything nefarious about institutions, per se. Do you?

I tried to give your traditional history a fair shake, I really did, spending a year or better proving and proofing your tradition and catechism, at a time when my motive was a pure quest for truth... Needless to say, I didn't find it there.

That's odd: I went through the same sort of thing in college (when I almost lost my Faith in God altogether), and I came to the exact opposite conclusion! So did Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, John Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, and countless other men who are far more brilliant than I.

There are several means, but lets get right down to the Bible itself, eh? isn't that where you are going?

It wasn't, actually; I was confining myself to the spurious claim that "perhaps all the writings attributed to St. Ignatius of Antioch were forgeries"; not only has that no basis in fact, but it's a rather "convenient" sort of conclusion for anti-Catholic-Church people to reach... yes? I might just as easily dismiss all of Luther's writings as mere forgeries, written by a Catholic as a "stunt". 'If I don't believe your church, how can I believe the Bible?'... Isn't that the play?

Not at this point, no. I'd gently ask, though: how did you arrive at the conclusion that the 66 books in your Protestant Bible, and those ALONE (there's that troublesome word, again!), comprise the Sacred Scriptures?

[paladinan]

Well you didn't get me...

Er... I meant "gotcha" in the sense of "I now understand you"... not in the sense of "I've caught you doing [x]". Just for the record.

I didn't write the stories...Numerous researchers into actual history revealed this stuff...Most of those people know that at least many of the writings of Ignatius are forgeries and some figure they are all forged...

"Numerous"! "Most know that at least many"! "Some figure all"! I'm convinced; you've conquered me! :)

But seriously: do you have any idea how your comments sound? These comments sound like rhetorical hyperventilation! Yes, there have certainly been ancient documents which were attributed (innocently or deliberately) to the wrong people; that's not news. (Think of the nonsensical "Gospel of Thomas", for example.) But your comment portrays the situation as something akin to "the Catholic Church is responsible for all of the forgeries", aside from hyperinflating (at least by insinuation) the number of forgeries. It's a bit like someone hearing about a spy in the news, and thinking, "Gasp! How many spies ARE there? Maybe EVERYONE is a spy!"

Just like the rest of your religion's forged history...

Wow. Not much to say to that, except... "What on earth are you talking about?"

Even Catholics admit to that...

Outside of your nightmares, or just within them?

If I was a Catholic I'd seriously research this stuff to make sure I wasn't blindly following a false religion...

...and... this doesn't apply to Protestants and other anti-Catholic-Church people? Physician, heal thyself, FRiend... :)

[MamaB]

I have read a lot about those books and everything I read said they were fake. There have been tv shows about them and their research said they're fake. They tested pieces of texts which proved they were written.
centuries after other Biblical books. Frankly, I had never heard of them until a few years ago.

[MHGinTN]

Um, you appeared to quote the KJV. Would you be so kind as to post the chapter and verse from which you lifted that ‘quote’?

[MHGinTN]

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

1 Peter 3:21

[editor-surveyor]

.
Protestants do not worship the sun god by proxy, nor expect forgiveness for our sins by eating the sun god’s cookie.

We do not keep the 40 days of Tammuz as catholics do either.

Satan is at the center of those practices, without question.

We do not call a sinful mortal the “mother of God” either.
.

[metmom]

I have accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior, have turned my life over to Him, and have repented of my sins.

Do Protestants believe that I can lose my salvation if I commit murder and fail to ever repent?

Why don't you find self-described Protestants and ask THEM?

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” —James 2:24

What do all Protestants teach regarding the relationship between faith, works and salvation?

[metmom]

If you claim you repented of your sins and then go out and murder and fail to repent, then you never repented of them in the first place or you wouldn’t have gone out and murdered.

[MHGinTN]

Thanks ...

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

[MHGinTN]

You can check my profile page and see how at least one Protestant teaches ‘it’. ‘Faithing’, to faithe,

[RnMomof7]

What do all Protestants teach regarding the necessity of baptism for salvation?

Context Context Context

…1 Peter 3: 20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us,.... The ark, and deliverance by it, as it was a type of Christ, and salvation by him, so it was a figure of baptism, and baptism was the antitype of that; or there is something in these which correspond, and answer to, and bear a resemblance to each other: as the ark was God's ordinance, and not man's invention, so is baptism, it is of heaven, and not of men; and as the ark, while it was preparing, was the scorn and derision of men, so is this ordinance of the Gospel; it was rejected with disdain by the Scribes and Pharisees, as it still is by many; and as the ark, when Noah and his family were shut up in it by God, represented a burial, and they seemed, as it were, to be buried in it, it was a lively emblem of baptism, which is expressed by a burial, Romans 6:4 and as they in the ark had the great deep broke up under them, and the windows of heaven opened over them, pouring out waters upon them, they were, as it were, immersed in, and were covered with water, this fitly figured baptism by immersion; nor were there any but adult persons that entered into the ark, nor should any be baptized but believers; to which may be added, that as the one saved by water, so does the other; for it is water baptism which is here designed, which John practised, Christ gave a commission for, and his disciples administered: it saves not as a cause, for it has no causal influence on, nor is it essential to salvation. Christ only is the cause and author of eternal salvation; and as those only that were in the ark were saved by water, so those only that are in Christ, and that are baptized into Christ, and into his death, are saved by baptism; not everyone that is baptized, but he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved,

[RnMomof7]

“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” —James 2:24

Context , context context

If one believes he is saved or damned by his works , then one comforts oneself with the idea that "I am not as bad as my neighbor"

The Bible tells us "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." That is the inspired word of God . It does not say that some have fallen short and some are "close"

May I quote James to you?

Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.,

So the thief is also a murder in Gods eyes.

No where does Jesus say or imply that one is saved by works.

The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation . t tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.

Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Jam 2:18 Yea a man may SAY, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

..

This is an amplification of the teaching of Jesus that we know a tree by the fruit it bears. It is how we know the saved from the unsaved. It does not declare that the man has faith ...but that he SAYS he has faith.

This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one .Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.

The bible is clear that it is God that gives the faith and it is God that ordains the works of the saved

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Hbr 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.

What do all Protestants teach regarding the relationship between faith, works and salvation?

What is the infallible magisterium's interpretation of this scripture..please cite the Magisterium's document so we can read it

[paladinan]

Makes a huge difference since we can see the existence of your religion which follows Peter...

What, exactly, does THAT mean?

Sure Jesus made Peter a little rock...

Jesus named him "rock", but didn't specify the size; the idea of "petros = little pebble" is Protestant commentary, and a mighty stretch (especially since "little pebble" and/or "small, detached rock" is represented by the word "lithos", not "petros"--NOWHERE in Scriptrure is "petros" used to represent anything but Simon Peter). But as I mentioned earlier: the size is ultimately irrelevant.

But Jesus distinguished between that little rock and the rock of Gibraltar...

:) Really? The rock of Gibraltar? I thought they were at Caesarea Phillipi! How did they get to the extreme Western tip of Europe, so fast?

He built the church on that mountain of a rock, not a stone...

Okay, sola Scriptura fan: chapter and verse, please, as to where in the Bible it says this? :)

[CynicalBear]

Well, let's make it easy again. We have a choice, we either pray consistently for Holy Spirit enlightenment and "search the scriptures daily" or we neglect our personal responsibility and give our lives over to some other fallible man to tell us what to believe. Catholics have chosen the later. I have chosen the former. I have put my total faith and trust in Jesus to keep His promises to us. Catholics have put their full faith and trust in the "magisterium" to tell them what they, the magisterium believes scripture says.

>>All you've done, really, is substitute the Holy Spirit for your own conclusions.<<

Um....what? Yeah, no kidding! I have submitted myself to the Holy Spirit to guide and give me understanding as it was promised in scripture.

>>which is the charism of infallibility.<<

Dude! Dude! Stop with trying to give credit to man already! The only infallibility involved is that of the Holy Spirit. If you want to continue with me prove from scripture that any man is given infallibility.