Are you infallible?

One Fold ^ | December 10, 2013 | Brian Culliton

[paladinan]

Er... when you say “It doesn’t...”, to what are you referring, and in what context? And who said anything about “how good” anyone is? I didn’t...

[BlueDragon]

bookmarked.

Knocked the cover off of that one. Clean out of the park, too.

It bounced around out in the parking lot smashing Romish windshields.

Can they sue? Nope.

They chose to come to the ballgame, and try to play but are [again] losing badly.

Their team is like a High school team with a few hot-shot pitchers and (and lots of chatter-noise makers).

The pitchers can smoke a few over the plate, when pitching to Little League grade-schoolers, but once reaching collegiate levels the brush back pitches end up being hit right back at the pitcher, the curve-balls are smashed for base hits, and when bases are loaded, the relievers are sent in to try to finish the inning of with a "save" ---- ker-pow, good-bye, and good-nite Irene.

It should be over, but Truth will still be denied.

[paladinan]

...and on that point: what makes you think that any particular clergy member of the Catholic Church has NOT accepted Christ? I certainly have, and I’m not even a clergy member...

[paladinan]

:) Just curious: do you *practice* that “you-rah-rah... go, team, go... we got game, they got pwned!” sort of “high-five-ing”, or does it come naturally?

[BlueDragon]

There are several people today who claim to be the pope. That doesn't make them the pope.

There was a time when most any bishop was referred to as (what translates into today's English) as "pope", papa.

It's not all 'Rome's fault that things turned out (developed) as they did. It is the sin of the church itself which set the stage(s) to bring it all about.

It was not for nothing that Christ said, (Matthew 8-10)

But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ,[b] and you are all brethren.

Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

[Springfield Reformer]

I was just being wary about possible forays into the idea of, "So you see, Magisteriums can be infallible... therefore, the Catholic Church [etc., etc.]"... which WOULD have been an "undistributed middle" fallacy.

Interesting point, and I do agree distribution of that middle term could be problematic, depending on the degree of abstraction one assigns to the word "magisterium."  Certainly Catholic apologists have attached a set of attributes to the class of things called "magesterium," and these attributes may well be different between the two (OT and NT) within Catholic thinking.  The problem I am seeing in this conversation is that what that term means as between the two of us is a big part of what is being contested, and it might help a great deal if both sides could come to a common working definition, so that we do not get sidetracked by hidden discrepancies.

For my part, I don't see a complete "apples and oranges" break between the OT and the NT teaching authority.  More like granny apples versus red delicious. Distinguishable on some attributes, but in a lot of ways the same thing. Indeed, a fair portion of our debate centers around how alike or different they really are, so assuming they are totally different in advance would be begging the question.  If we abstract the term "magisterium" to mean nothing more than "divinely appointed teaching authority for the covenant community," we would have to say they are functionally identical. If we get a bit more concrete and start looking at organization and process, we will start to get some differences.  But it is precisely our contention that infallibility of the magisterial body is present in neither Old or New Covenant models.  We demonstrate to a high degree of certainty infallibility was not present in the old, and thus demonstrate it is not necessary to have an infallible institution in order to have and benefit from an infallible divine revelation.

In other words, we are attempting to show by analogy between the old and the new that they are indeed both fallible. This is because the typical argument we see in support of institutional infallibility is necessity, necessity to the purpose of recognizing divine truth.   I personally am confused at this point because that necessity has been presented to us as a key to knowing divine truth but there seems to be some variability, with some posters taking a more absolutist approach and others allowing for alternatives to institutional infallibility in some special cases.  If I were asked to reconstruct a formal, uniform Catholic position on the matter using nothing but favorable FR posts, I would feel the task was impossible.

In any event, our point is that the necessity argument fails because the divinely appointed OT teaching authority didn't have it and yet the people of God could still connect with the truth of God.  In math, if you purport to come up with a universal axiom, and yet there is a counterexample, the axiom's alleged universality is disproved.  Absolutes brook no exceptions.  If the divinely appointed OT teaching authority did not have and did not need infallibility for people to find God's truth, why should we assume it suddenly became necessary in the NT to accomplish the same end?  

Again, I'm not sure I could articulate the RC argument for the change here, because as a rule, I don't think it is ever presented.  We never get far enough down the road to do that.  Which, BTW, is reason enough to appreciate the dialog we are having, as it has exposed this problem as an area to explore.

Peace,

SR

[BlueDragon]

:) Just curious: do you *practice* that “you-rah-rah... go, team, go... we got game, they got pwned!” sort of “high-five-ing”, or does it come naturally?

Daniel earned it. No side-winding reliever, or bush league junk-man, he. More like a starter who finishes for the win in that post I which 'bumped to the top.'

Here ya' go.

Perhaps someday you'll too be able to make fully cognizant argument (instead of bullying little people).

[metmom]

No... partly because the Church has never contradicted Herself in her core dogmas (i.e. things recognized as "de fide"--i.e. part of Divine Revelation), and partly because any Church authorities who contradict Church teaching are to be disobeyed in that respect.

OK. Back to this.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

True or not. Yes or no?

I know what I was taught growing up.

[metmom]

One clarification: in order to be in a state of sanctifying grace (which mortal sin kills), one ordinarily needs to have received the Sacrament of Baptism; given the large number of non-Catholics in the discussion, I should make sure that’s made clear.

Chapter and verse?

Besides, sin cannot overcome grace.

Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds.

[FourtySeven]

However, if you wanted to define Protestant belief by what you see certain RCs expressing then you are only arguing against what you wrongly assume i hold to, while in any case you can only argue for the need for the magisterial office, which i affirm, both benefiting from it and in being subject to authority which Scripture says in whatever church i have been part of, as Scripture says, . "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls..." (Hebrews 13:17) Just this Wednesday night i did what the pastor asked me to in giving a message, while i also have stated on FR before that the ideal would be a centralized magisterium, if not being above Scripture as Rome effectively makes herself.

Alright fine. It's interesting you cite Heb 13:17. I guess the next logical question to ask would be: have you ever found yourself in disagreement with any that "rule over you" and "watch for your soul"? If so, what happened? Specifically did you always submit to such authority (i.e., change your mind in accordance with their argument or will) or were there any times, when in such disagreement, you didn't do so. Be specific as possible please.

Also, to save yourself some time, you can safely ignore any questions or comments that don't apply given answers to previous questions. It'll save you from having to write pedantic statements like "Once again you are displaying your ignorance of the RF..."

[BlueDragon]

If I were asked to reconstruct a formal, uniform Catholic position on the matter using nothing but favorable FR posts, I would feel the task was impossible.

Aah, you have discovered the secret, Grasshopper.

The decoder rings are tunable to varying frequencies.

With a simply twist, fuzzy infallibles can be made out to be one thing. Give it a shake, and it's somewhat different.

All rings are not set on the same channel, but all decoder rings are on the one real (and only) channel.

That's all we've got to know...

Now kiss the ring(s)? No?

Ok, then just perhaps the Lord's own leading us to all truth and righteousness is not dependent upon that process having been necked down, funneled or channeled through any one particular "infallible by committee" design. Though at the same time that does not render all ecclesiastical community committees be entirely in error, either.

What's the measure of which is right, and what may be seen as clearly enough wrong? The committee sits in judgement -- of the committee, then publishes edict that the committee is the measure of all things?

Which things (that are taught) best adhere to the Word of the Lord, and His Spirit, as best those be known by those whom actually are acquainted with written Word, and both acquainted with and yielded to the Spirit of the Lord? Tradition can be of assistance, but traditions and attitudes themselves are not -- the written Word, or (Holy) Spirit either.

In regards to the yielding to Spirit --- is where the "believe on Him who was sent" can reappear within ourselves, I've come to understand (or else ---- believe). But check and re-check for affirmation. The prudent navigator does not rely upon only one, or else just a few navigational aids, but widens his views to take in all, including checking and re-checking instrument calibrations, and his own interpretations of those...

---

---

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm

Not everything received from the past is of equal value, nor is everything received from the past necessarily true. As one of the bishops remarked at the Council of Carthage in 257:‘The Lord said, "I am truth." He did not say, I am custom’ (The Opinions of the Bishops On the Baptizing of Heretics, 30). There is a difference between ‘Tradition’ and ‘traditions:’ many traditions which the past has handed down are human and accidental — pious opinions (or worse), but not a true part of the one Tradition, the essential Christian message.

[MamaB]

I can not answer for Daniel but I have always had Bible teaching ministers so no disagreements. When I follow along and see exactly what he is reading from and it is exactly what the Bible says, I do not have a problem. My minister has his dr’s degree in ancient languages so we all trust him completely. Now, there are those feel good speakers who do not speak for me.

[MamaB]

I can not answer for Daniel but I have always had Bible teaching ministers so no disagreements. When I follow along and see exactly what he is reading from and it is exactly what the Bible says, I do not have a problem. My minister has his dr’s degree in ancient languages so we all trust him completely. Now, there are those feel good speakers who do not speak for me.

[Springfield Reformer]

...hereby you - who before asserted what the Prot position is - example belief in another fav RC propagandist strawman, that SS means only Scripture is to be used in determining what God reveals...
And.. We do uphold the teaching and magisterial office...

No you don't. At least not that I've ever seen, unless you wish to state now that you, Daniel, are a Presbyterian, since you do tend to post passages from the WCF from time to time. Are you a Presbyterian?

If not, if you are going to state like everyone else around here that "I'm not a part of any denomination" and/or "I'm just a Bible-believing Christian" or similar non-committal statements, then you most certainly do not "uphold the teaching and magisterial office." I'm fully aware of the theoretical definition of "sola scriptura".

The problem is with you and everyone else around here, you don't actually follow it in practice. You belong to no denomination and when asked, responses similar to the above are given.

The only authority you rely upon is Scripture. When asked to support your claims nothing else is given other than Scripture and your interpretation of it. You never give any other authoritative reason.

So you are your own authority. Whether you want to admit it or not is not my concern.

??

These conversations are most profitable and enjoyable when we do not presume to know internal motivation in disregard of presented testimony.  Our testimony is that we do regard Scripture as the supreme authority, and that we do have regard for those God give us as teachers to the body of Christ, as there are Scriptural accounts for all of that.  Where it goes off the rails is when one party or the other gets frustrated with the logical and Scriptural arguments and starts seeking a means of closure without getting an agreement on the points being contested.  The temptation, and I maintain we all feel it occasionally, is to drop down into sweeping generalizations that express our own beliefs much more than they express the other party's beliefs.

(Sidebar: Oddly, this reminds me of an experience I had when I was in grade school.  I am an attorney now, but back then I was just a kid who liked watching Perry Mason at Grandma's house every Sunday evening.  It happened that in one of my classes at school we were given a chance to play attorney in a criminal case.  I was cast as the prosecutor, and I had read the workbook and absolutely knew who the guilty party was.  But when I got him on the stand, and I had gone through a few poor, simplistic efforts to get him to fess up, just like Perry Mason, he wouldn't cooperate!  The nerve of him!  It really got me frustrated, and I fell into just berating him, which also did nothing to get at the truth.  I've reflected a lot on that since then, and it is a factor in how I work now.  Glad it wasn't on tape.  But then this all happened before the invention of either fire or the wheel, so I guess I'm safe. :)  )

Anyway, I have a proposal, part of a hypothetical civility code some of us are thinking about, that would be a voluntary set of rules we could keep in addition to the regular RF forum rules.  My proposal is that when one or the other side realizes they have not moved the other party and have essentially nothing else they can do in terms of adding new information or new analysis, just admit the impasse openly and cordially.  I've actually seen others do this, and I've tried it myself a few times.  Rather than accusing the other party of not admitting something which they have testified they do not believe, try taking them at their word and admit the dead end.  

BTW, this doesn't mean we have to accept false statements of objective fact.  If someone claims there's a secret Hebrew original NT known only to certain initiates that invalidates the Greek NT, and they can't pony up the proof, they are stuck with the facts being against them.  They lose, we win, at least until someone comes up with real, new facts that change the equation.

But if we testify to you we honor Scripture as our supreme objective authority on matters of Christian faith and practice, then it will do no good to accuse us of some hidden alternative spiritual reality to which none but God has access.  That's what we really believe, and we have resolved the subsidiary issues accordingly.  We aren't all Presbyterians or Reformed Baptists or Lutherans, etc.  But on a point by point basis, any one of us might find the Westminster or the London Baptist or the Augsburg confessions useful and instructive and beneficial to know and learn.  The fact that we don't share your exact model of how the magisterium should work does not mean we reject the concept altogether.  That's a fallacy of false dilemma.  It only means we have a different working model than you do, one that can actually work across a multiplicity of denominational histories to forge real unity on key issues.

But when these objections are met with accusations rather than analysis, you know what that means to us?  It means you have run out of serious analytical ammunition and are resorting to nerf darts.  This is very easy to do.  I'd bet a thorough review of my own posts would turn up more of that than I'd like.  But is it good?  Does it help move the other party in your direction?  Doubtful.  When is the last time you bought a product from someone who accused you to your face of not really believing in your own objections to the product?  It doesn't work.

And our objections to the Roman "product" are quite real to us. In the present discussion, for example, we see that the logic of papal infallibility runs in an infinite loop, which is the main point of the OP, and offers a worse solution rather than a better to a significant epistemological problem.  In computer terminology, we might call it the bootstrap problem.  How does one get from being a fallible private self with inescapably personal sensory and interpretive processes to a place where they know divine truth in an objective way?  If you think this is easy or trivial, I can't go there with you.  I think it takes a miracle:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(John 6:44-45)

... which miracle of divine, personal revelation is exampled by Peter himself:

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 16:16-17)

There is much more that could be said here, but I am already going on too long.  The short of it is that the analysis phase of our present discussion is still rich with unexplored veins, and does not have to be cluttered up with comments that are sure to produce a defensive response but have little to no analytical value.  When any of us does get to that place of going in unproductive circles, why can't we  just say, OK, this is where we're at for now, and just leave it there?  Anyway, just my two cents ....

Peace,

SR

[paladinan]

[Iscool]
So nah...We certainly know it isn't referring to baptism since born and water do not mean baptism...

[paladinan]
Aside from raw opinion, why would you say that? I've yet to see even a beginning of a proof for that claim... and please do look at my previous post, re: your confusion about the words, and my use of them.

[Iscool]
It is well established by the Greek texts as well as any dictionary in existence in the world that 'water' nor 'born' means baptism...

I really and truly fail to understand how anyone could have a clear answer handed to them, REPEATEDLY, but then continue to ignore that answer and resume repeating the mistaken (and--forgive me--silly) statement which started the mess in the first place.

You have admitted that yourself yet out of the other side of your mouth you claim you fail to see any proof for that claim...

Just checking: are you actually talking to the commenter named "paladinan"? That statement of yours has about as much connection to reality as does the statement, "Nuclear-powered penguins are demanding voting rights, paladinan, and you've done nothing in this conversation to prove that!" Of COURSE, I "admitted" that baptism =/= water... because you were the one who wrote that bizarre and false idea, in the first place! It's a bit strange for you to say that I "admitted" that your false attribution to me was... well... wrong. As I said earlier. Repeatedly.

Say it again, with me: ...WITH water. WITH water. WITH water. Repetition is the mother of learning. Keep going. :)

Jesus is talking about two births...One of water and one of the Spirit...Count 'em...

Yessir... and the Bible talks about three Gods... the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Count 'em. :) Unless, of course, you might simply be mistaken?

[paladinan]
I see nothing in the text which requires that, much less proves that. Baptism is the way by which one is born "of water and the Spirit" in one and the same instance... and you've shown nothing to counter that idea, at all.

[Iscool]
The first reason is because of the word 'and'...Water AND the Spirit are two separate things...

Um... that makes no sense, FRiend. The word "OR" might have implied two different things... but "AND" usually implies that the two things come together, as a package-deal, so to speak. As I said, earlier. Right?

[Iscool]
Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again...

[paladinan]
...born "anothen" (which can mean "again", or "from above")--Jesus obviously meant the latter, since He chides Nicodemus for assuming that it meant the former.

[Iscool]
Oh brother!!! So according to you, Jesus says to Nicodemus, 'You must be born from above'...And Nicodemus responds, Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Yes. Did you catch the Greek word, "anothen"? For someone who was talking earlier about things being "well-established in the Greek texts", you're certainly not using those texts very much, here; get your Greek lexicon and look up the word "anothen"--even Strong's gets it relatively right. It has a double-meaning, depending on the context: it CAN mean "again", but it also CAN mean "from above". Is that a bit more clear? That's called "an ambiguous word"... a bit like the word "fresh" (which can mean "cool and rejuvinated", or it can also mean "crude and socially pushy, especially in sexual ways"). When Nicodemus chose the wrong meaning, Jesus went on to clarify.

But by following the text, we can see that when Jesus said 'born again', it would be natural to assume Jesus was speaking of a natural birth, the second time....

What "text" are you following? The English translation which you happen to use? Don't you see what you've just done? You've abandoned the "Greek texts" which you thought were so useful, earlier, and you're running off with some idea of, "Well, Jesus obviously said 'born AGAIN'!". The Greek text uses the very same word--"anothen"--in all three occurrences in the Gospel of John. If Jesus meant "born from above" in the first occurrence, then it's eminently reasonable to conclude that He meant the same thing in repeat occurrences; and when St. John the Baptist uses it in John 3:31, it's painfully clear that it's being used in the sense of "from above":

"He who comes from above [Gk: anothen] is above all; he who is of the earth belongs to the earth, and of the earth he speaks; He who comes from heaven is above all."

Do you see how the text clearly contrasts "from above" with "belonging to earth"? And do you also see how the text clearly matches "from above" with "above all"? The next sentence is an even stronger restatement of the previous one: "He who comes from Heaven (which is "above", in the spitual sense) is ABOVE all".

Baptism is NOT being born of water...

St. Peter (1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47), St. Paul (Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5, etc.), St. Philip (Acts 8:36-38) St. Ananias (Acts 9:18), and every last Greek dictionary on earth disagree with you, FRiend (to say nothing of Church history). Acts 10:47 is especially clear: ""Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

So... can you admit that Baptism INVOLVES water, at least? And no, you aren't compelled to believe that Baptism EQUALS water, any more than a kiss EQUALS my wife. You just need to believe that baptism, which saves us (1 Peter 3:21), is done WITH water.

No one was ever born of water by being baptized in water...

(*sigh*) Not if you don't count the billions of people throughout the ages and throughout the world who have been reborn that way, I guess...

> Only in the minds of Catholics, I guess...

...and Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans, and most Lutherans, and Methodists, and most members of the Reformed traditions, and others which add up to outnumber your view by at least four to one. Yep. :)

[RnMomof7]

The Holy Spirit dwells in the soul of anyone who is not in a state of mortal sin. Didn't you see that, when you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church as preparation for talking about the Catholic Church on a public forum?

So the Holy Spirit kinda drift in and out ...??? So does He return after one does 3 Hail Marys and 3 Our Fathers?

BTW The catechism is not an infallible document.. so it is subject to change ..

Do we have any infallible scripture on the in and out Holy Spirit ??

[RnMomof7]

There are several people today who claim to be the pope. That doesn't make them the pope.

More word games.. we all know about the anti popes..

Heck there are Romanists that still claim the church is infallible..and we all know that is not true

[paladinan]

:) Ah. So you *have* practiced it. That's what I thought; thanks.

...and, although I don't usually get this picky with those who are polite: I think you meant "cogent" argument, yes? "Cognizant" means "being aware of"... and an argument can't be "aware" of anything; only an arguER can. It really does help triumphalistic and snide criticisms of others' arguments if one uses one's words correctly. Just saying. :) Or, better yet, one might drop the combative and belligerent approach altogether, and have an actual discussion of the topics...

...and re: the hyperventilating paroxysm about "bullying little people": what ARE you talking about? Which people are you calling "little people", and what do you see as "bullying"?

[RnMomof7]

Chapter and verse?

There is none ...so you will not hear back

[paladinan]

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" True or not. Yes or no? I know what I was taught growing up.

True. "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" is a de fide article, and it's infallible; it teaches that everyone who is saved is saved by virtue of some connection--whether visible (as is the norm) or invisible (as is the case with baptism of desire, baptism of blood, invincible ignorance, etc.)--to the Catholic Church. At no time was it ever defined in the "absolute" sense of requiring full and explicit communion with the Catholic Church in order to avoid damnation; that would lead to absurd teachings (as some Evangelicals actually believe, BTW) such as the idea that those who die while innocently ignorant of the Gospel [e.g. missionaries not getting to them in time, perhaps] are damned.

So... where, exactly, do you say that the Church has changed this doctrine?