Church Infallibility - Objection 1

[reyb]

As far as I can recall, the issue is about - a particular church (whether catholic or protestant) which is the ‘True Church’ or the ‘Infallible Church’ or the ‘Perfect Church’ believed to be founded by Christ himself from where ‘the power of evil will not prevail’ but still even her own member believes there are ‘something’ lacking or error or whatever in her - which I demand to know and therefore, to ask once more, in what way such Church becomes ‘Perfect’.

[reyb]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1845766' date='Apr 24 2009, 06:17 AM'][quote name='dUSt' post='6112' date='Jul 18 2003, 04:21 AM']


Sometimes I wish someone could give me a reason not to be Catholic. It's hard being Catholic. If someone could convince me that the Catholic church is not the church Christ founded, my life would be a LOT easier. Trust me.[/quote]


I guess no one gave you a reason yet and you're still going strong. And look at all the fruit. Godbless.
[/quote]

Nobody can convice you as long as you are 'faithful' but to believe a lie and still cling into it, is also called 'stubborness' - and it is up to you to find out the truth.

[thessalonian]

I should have looked at this thread earlier and got involved. I first all see much false dichotomizing on both sides ot the debate. The Church is not just visible, though it is, and not just invisible though it is. Like the human body it has a visible part as the body of Christ and a spiritual part. It is not either or.

The spiritual part is most made manifest in the souls of those who love Christ and strive for the truth. "the true believer" I suppose. But this is problematic to say the least. For this leaves out, in the protestant world all children before the age of reason who can be a true beleiver and all those who are intellectually incapable of being a "true believer" such as the mentally retarded to varying degrees among many others. Children in the Old Covenant were made a part of the Kingdom of Israel through circumsion. We say the New Covenant is something greater, but this true believer position leaves them out. Baptismal regeneration, extended to the infants is the only solution to this dilema that many protestants ignore (except the Lutherans and presbyterians).

The scriptures also tell us that "men may see the good that you do and give glory to God". Those without the spirit cannot see spiritual matters. They cannot see the "city on a hill". Therefore there must be a visible component of the Church doing the work of God for ALL men to see. The Church MUST be visible.

Now with regard to the statement in the opening post, does the statement imply infallibility? I go back and forth with that one. The truth prevails and so Christ's Church must have the truth. Certainly not every individual has this truth in its fullness within them (though I would argue that a Catholic possesses it by his being bound to the Church in it's fullness). But Christ said "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" and "you will worship in spirit and in truth". Christ certainly was not talking about partial truth or truth mixed with error. That is little better than what Satan gave Adam and Eve. He doesn't outright lie. He mixes the two.

Therefore the truth must be discernable and available. There is no way that protestants can make that claim. They have elements of it of course and these elements are salvific in and of themselves, but the error has consequence also.

The problem however with the opening statement is that it is a proof text. I do believe that infallibility is implicit in it but the quote is a proof text and it ignores context. The verse before, "WHATEVER you bind on earth will be bound in heaven". Now God cannot bind a lie and so quote clearly to those who have this authority (surely Christ would not have given it if it had not been passed to today) MUST speak infallibily when this authority is excercised. Any protestans want to come forward and claim they have it? Clearly in context this shows that the statement in the OP relates infallibility to the gates of hell not prevailing. Sorry for the long winded speach but I had to catch up.

[thessalonian]

Mulls, how much true belief does one have to have to be a true believer? What are the essentials that one must believe in. Are there 10 essentials, 20?, 1? 100? Lists with these numbers of essentials are available on the net.

Why do you leave infants out of the Church Mulls? Your type of Christianity says that children are incapable of believe and yet you say that one must be a true believer to be a part of the Church. Ergo infants cannot be members of the Church.

[reyb]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1851277' date='Apr 28 2009, 12:44 PM']I should have looked at this thread earlier and got involved. I first all see much false dichotomizing on both sides ot the debate. The Church is not just visible, though it is, and not just invisible though it is. Like the human body it has a visible part as the body of Christ and a spiritual part. It is not either or.

The spiritual part is most made manifest in the souls of those who love Christ and strive for the truth. "the true believer" I suppose. But this is problematic to say the least. For this leaves out, in the protestant world all children before the age of reason who can be a true beleiver and all those who are intellectually incapable of being a "true believer" such as the mentally retarded to varying degrees among many others. Children in the Old Covenant were made a part of the Kingdom of Israel through circumsion. We say the New Covenant is something greater, but this true believer position leaves them out. Baptismal regeneration, extended to the infants is the only solution to this dilema that many protestants ignore (except the Lutherans and presbyterians).

The scriptures also tell us that "men may see the good that you do and give glory to God". Those without the spirit cannot see spiritual matters. They cannot see the "city on a hill". Therefore there must be a visible component of the Church doing the work of God for ALL men to see. The Church MUST be visible.

Now with regard to the statement in the opening post, does the statement imply infallibility? I go back and forth with that one. The truth prevails and so Christ's Church must have the truth. Certainly not every individual has this truth in its fullness within them (though I would argue that a Catholic possesses it by his being bound to the Church in it's fullness). But Christ said "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" and "you will worship in spirit and in truth". Christ certainly was not talking about partial truth or truth mixed with error. That is little better than what Satan gave Adam and Eve. He doesn't outright lie. He mixes the two.

Therefore the truth must be discernable and available. There is no way that protestants can make that claim. They have elements of it of course and these elements are salvific in and of themselves, but the error has consequence also.

The problem however with the opening statement is that it is a proof text. I do believe that infallibility is implicit in it but the quote is a proof text and it ignores context. The verse before, "WHATEVER you bind on earth will be bound in heaven". Now God cannot bind a lie and so quote clearly to those who have this authority (surely Christ would not have given it if it had not been passed to today) MUST speak infallibily when this authority is excercised. Any protestans want to come forward and claim they have it? Clearly in context this shows that the statement in the OP relates infallibility to the gates of hell not prevailing. Sorry for the long winded speach but I had to catch up.[/quote]

In short, Roman Catholic Church is the infalliable Church.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='reyb' post='1853444' date='Apr 30 2009, 04:46 PM']In short, Roman Catholic Church is the infalliable Church.[/quote]
The Catholic Church has the protection of God when proclaiming faith and morals for the universal Church.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='reyb' post='1853444' date='Apr 30 2009, 03:46 PM']In short, Roman Catholic Church is the infalliable Church.[/quote]

Either there is none and the truth is not objectively knowable or it is the Catholic Church. No other can possibly lay claim to it.

[reyb]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1853460' date='Apr 30 2009, 02:51 PM']The Catholic Church has the protection of God when proclaiming faith and morals for the universal Church.[/quote]


[quote name='thessalonian' post='1853470' date='Apr 30 2009, 02:53 PM']Either there is none and the truth is not objectively knowable or it is the Catholic Church. No other can possibly lay claim to it.[/quote]


I asked something in ‘One True Church’ which I will ask again.

[post="1358567"]If your Church is the True Church of Christ – The Only True Church – are holy prophets a part or member of your Church? I mean, do your Church having same faith and baptism as that of the Holy prophets and Apostles?[/post] - because it is written Eph 4:4-6 [color="#FF0000"]There is one body and one Spirit— just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism ; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.[/color]

Are Holy Prophets Roman Catholics?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='reyb' post='1853829' date='Apr 30 2009, 11:29 PM']I asked something in ‘One True Church’ which I will ask again.

[post="1358567"]If your Church is the True Church of Christ – The Only True Church – are holy prophets a part or member of your Church? I mean, do your Church having same faith and baptism as that of the Holy prophets and Apostles?[/post] - because it is written Eph 4:4-6 [color="#FF0000"]There is one body and one Spirit— just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism ; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.[/color]

Are Holy Prophets Roman Catholics?[/quote]
Define Holy Prophets.

[reyb]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1853951' date='May 1 2009, 12:22 AM']Define Holy Prophets.[/quote]

PROPHET

1. prophetes NT:4396, "one who speaks forth or openly" (see PROPHECY, A), "a proclaimer of a divine message," denoted among the Greeks an interpreter of the oracles of the gods.

In the Sept. it is the translation of the word roeh, "a seer"; 1 Sam 9:9, indicating that the "prophet" was one who had immediate intercourse with God. It also translates the word nabhi, meaning "either one in whom the message from God springs forth" or "one to whom anything is secretly communicated." Hence, in general, "the prophet" was one upon whom the Spirit of God rested, Num 11:17-29, one, to whom and through whom God speaks, Num 12:2; Amos 3:7,8. In the case of the OT prophets their messages were very largely the proclamation of the divine purposes of salvation and glory to be accomplished in the future; the "prophesying" of the NT "prophets" was both a preaching of the divine counsels of grace already accomplished and the foretelling of the purposes of God in the future.

(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)


and I used the word ‘Holy Prophet’ to differentiate from the ‘false’.

[thessalonian]

Let me ask you a question and then I will respond. Do you believe that the faith has been "delivered once for all"?

[LouisvilleFan]

"Humane Vitae" = prophesy

Ergo, Pope Paul VI = holy prophet

[reyb]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1854171' date='May 1 2009, 08:25 AM']Let me ask you a question and then I will respond. Do you believe that the faith has been "delivered once for all"?[/quote]

What do you mean by 'delivered once for all'? Do you ask me if I believe that all of us have 'faith'?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='reyb' post='1859064' date='May 5 2009, 09:50 PM']What do you mean by 'delivered once for all'? Do you ask me if I believe that all of us have 'faith'?[/quote]


No was the faith delivered once for all, meaning that there is nothing new added, that we only grow in understanding of what has been revealed.

[reyb]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1859316' date='May 5 2009, 11:17 PM']No was the faith delivered once for all, meaning that there is nothing new added, that we only grow in understanding of what has been revealed.[/quote]

Are you referring to the ‘faith’ of circumcised and uncircumcised in Romans 3:27-31

[color="#FF0000"]27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith . 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. [/color]
NIV

Rom 3:27-31

[color="#FF0000"]Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. [/color]NKJV

[thessalonian]

Seems you want to dance instead of answer the question. I'll pass.

[Guest]

[quote name='reyb' post='1851111' date='Apr 28 2009, 12:46 AM']Nobody can convice you as long as you are 'faithful' but to believe a lie and still cling into it, is also called 'stubborness' - and it is up to you to find out the truth.[/quote]

please
i've searched tons of anticatholic sites trying to find the reason the church isnt true. ive honestly searched with my heart and soul for the true church and i know its the catholic church. you are the one that is stubborn bro. and i have even realised the false prophet may attempt to come through the church to work with the antichrist. but its ok because if it happens it wont be a real pope it will be an anti pope. and the gates of hell wont prevail and the true believes will know the antipope is a fake and it wont effect the true church and true believers. who will be in trouble though are the catholics without any faith and who know nothing about prophecy and are in love with this world. they will be decieved by an antipope and the antichrist into accpeting the mark of the beast.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Guest

[reyb]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1859616' date='May 6 2009, 12:59 PM']Seems you want to dance instead of answer the question. I'll pass.[/quote]

I have no intention to ignore or derail our discussion but, I am just trying to fully understand what you are saying. It seems you are asking me, ‘Is faith already ‘complete’ – because you said ‘delivered once for all’ - while knowledge is still increasing?’. Thus, I quoted Romans 3:27-31 with emphasis on ‘Rom 3:30 ‘…[color="#FF0000"]since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith[/color]….(NKJV)’, and we know the obvious difference between circumcised - meaning chosen people who are trusted by God’s word - and the uncircumcised.

If the ‘chosen’ are justify by faith as well as the ‘uncircumcised’ are justify by that same ‘faith’ - then it seems ‘faith is delivered once for all’ as you have said – and this statement rings in my mind, which we need to discuss thoroughly.

....to continue.

[reyb]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1859689' date='May 6 2009, 02:59 PM']please
i've searched tons of anticatholic sites trying to find the reason the church isnt true. ive honestly searched with my heart and soul for the true church and i know its the catholic church. you are the one that is stubborn bro. and i have even realised the false prophet may attempt to come through the church to work with the antichrist. but its ok because if it happens it wont be a real pope it will be an anti pope. and the gates of hell wont prevail and the true believes will know the antipope is a fake and it wont effect the true church and true believers. who will be in trouble though are the catholics without any faith and who know nothing about prophecy and are in love with this world. they will be decieved by an antipope and the antichrist into accpeting the mark of the beast.[/quote]

As long as you have faith, ‘hardness’ is for sure to follow, and in a sense, all of us have ‘hardness’ because all of us have faith. But whether this ‘hardness’ means stubbornness, is something you have to discover and we have to discuss.

For example and I know, I am a stubborn person in your eyes and you too, as I said, are a stubborn person in my eyes. Or let us say, I am a stubborn and nonsensical person in the eyes of those who believe in the existence of historical Jesus, and obviously they are many – in view of the fact that I do not accept the truthfulness of such existence which they say it is true - while on the other hand, those who believe in this historical Jesus who is supposed to be the Jesus of the scripture, are all stubborn in our eyes, because as I have said, ‘it is a lie’.

It happens because, all of us have our own reason why we give such comment and that reason is our awareness of the truth, alongside with our true intention to one another. In short, the comment about ‘stubbornness’ depends on who is looking to whom.

But I am relentless in asking question because I trusted you…ask and you will find it.

[thessalonian]

The faith is what we are to believe and so what I mean is that it was all given to the Church. i.e. is there new revelation. We grow in understanding of what was delivered individually and as a Church but it is all there for us to believe. It has been delivered to all. There is no Jew nor Greek.