Coke Bear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- "the infallibility of the church's teaching authority is based on Jesus's promise to his apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13)". His apostles. Not perpetually in the church in the form of an infallible teaching office. In the Bible, the church always had to be corrected from error, and therefore must always go back to Scripture, the word of the apostles. You are making the argument for sola scriptura.
First, as we all know, sola scriptura is NOT biblical. Second, the Church came BEOFRE scripture. For instance, the Council of Jerusalem took please before there were ANY NT scriptures to reference. The apostles decided the matter not the scriptures.
I have already discussed passages in Acts 15, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5 and 1 Tim 4:14 how the apostles passed on their authority to their successors. Also, infallibility isn't a charism that is given to just ONE successor (save the Bishop of Rome). It can only be exercised by the entire Magisterium collectively. Not just individual successors whenever they spoke.
Finally, if the infallibility wasn't passed down to the successors of the apostles (collectively), then anyone could believe what they wanted to about scriptures when they were finally canonized (by the Church). This has what lead to the way array of protestant denominations today.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- the doctrine of papal infallibility is completely useless. Popes have made erroneous statements in their official decrees. If you say "well, they weren't speaking ex cathedra", then you're picking and choosing, demonstrating its uselessness.
No, the Church isn't "picking and choosing". It is very selective and takes it very seriously. Only two times have the Popes spoken ex cathedra. The Church doesn't claim that EVERYTHING that comes out of the Vatican is infallibility declared.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- it's already been proven that your ecumenical councils were in error, with regard to both the canon and icon veneration.
Proven by whom, you? What is your authority? The canon existed LONG (over a millennia) before protestant RIPPED out 7 books of the bible, but have you come to correct the Church as to what's canon? Why should anyone here listen to your infallible opinion on these topics?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- both Paul and Jesus had to severely rebuke the churches for their failings. If you don't know this already, you just don't know Scripture. In each of those situations, it was either an original apostle or Jesus himself giving the correction, NOT some church teaching office. No teaching office exists in Jesus' letters to the seven churches of Revelation. Jesus gave his direct word through a prophet (John) to each of the churches himself. Notice there was absolutely no pope also.
In the beginning of the Church age, there was no "Pope". There was a Bishop of Rome. His name was Peter. When Revelation was written, Clement I was the Bishop of Rome. The Church in Corinth wrote to him seeking guidance on issues of church order and authority and NOT John (when HE was still alive) when matters needed to be settled. If John was the Beloved apostle, why didn't they write him for assistance?
People in churches did fail (and still do). The PEOPLE in individual churches needed rebuking, not the Church itself.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- Scripture says Jesus' church is the "pillar and foundation" of truth".
CORRECT!!! Jesus' Church, the ONLY one that he started, is the Catholic Church. We totally agree here!
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
This does NOT mean that it is infallible in its ways and never needs correction. Scripture is clear on that. Protestantism is that correction. And there is nothing in Scripture that supports the infallibility of the apostles' word being passed in succession to successors to the apostles, who then can create new truths that aren't in Scripture. Yet another in a long, long list of your non sequiturs.
Scripture isn't clear on that (correction). Actually, it's clear that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from error in passages like Matt 16:18-19.
Protestantism is NOT the correction, it the error itself that needs correction. If the church the pillar and foundation of truth, the Protestantism CANNOT be the church because one can't find two protestant churches that believe the same things. There is ONLY one truth. This is easy to see. Look at several concepts that protestants argue about among themselves:
- Believer's baptism vs. infant baptism
- Baptismal regeneration
- Real presence vs. memorial of the Lord's Supper
- Predestination vs. free will
- Church governance bishops vs. board of elders vs. congregational autonomy
Not all of these can be TRUE at the same time. These important concepts are contradictory. In the law of non-contradiction, these theological concepts cannot not both be true.
How can Protestantism be the "correction" with so many contradictions? It is illogical.
- Sola scriptura is for TODAY, not during the time of the council of Jerusalem. During those times, the apostles were alive and Christians could hear directly from them. Today, the only thing we know that is from the apostles is in Scripture, and nowhere else. This is the fact that you though you try, you can never escape from.
- The successors to the apostles were charged ONLY with continuing what they the apostles had preached. And the record of what they preached is found ONLY in Scripture. Hence, sola scriptura. There is absolutely NO support ANYWHERE that the successors to the apostles were given the same authority or infallibility as the original apostles.
- NOTHING that Clement of Rome wrote indicated he was the supreme ruler of Christianity. You're conflating "bishop of Rome" with "pope" as Roman Catholicism defines it today. And it's a consensus among historians that
there was no singular bishop of Rome until the middle of the second century. Before that time, the church in Rome was ruled by a council of elders.
- Leaders of a church in one town OFTEN wrote to other churches in other towns. Clement did nothing new. Doing so did NOT mean that he was the supreme leader of Christianity. He never even addressed himself as such. If you were to go back and tell Clement that he was the supreme leader, he wouldn't have any idea what you're talking about.
- You're question about why the churches didn't write to John for guidance is nonsensical. The churches didn't write to anyone for guidance. John was writing JESUS' words of guidance and warnings to the church. And you're running away from the fact that there was NO POPE involved here.
- If popes have only spoken "ex cathedra" TWICE throughout the history of the church, then it's much more useless than anyone's imagined. That means that EVERYTHING ELSE they have uttered, organized, or approved is NOT infallible. You're only heightening my point!
- It's already been proven by historical fact that the
early church universally denounced icon veneration, a belief and practice sanctioned by a Roman Catholic ecumenical church council as originating from the apostles themselves, a complete falsehood. It's also been proven that the council of Trent anathematized its own previous councils that approved different canons of Scripture. You are denial of facts and history.
- Protestantism is the correction because it makes Scripture the only infallible authority for the church, which is the correct view. The question of how Scripture gets interpreted is a completely different one. The divisions over believer's baptism vs infant baptism, predestination vs free will, etc only demonstrates the freedom of Christians to follow their conscience, instead of it having to be ruled over by a corrupt central authority that has abused its authority and has corrupted the gospel.
- If you believe that the bread and wine are the literal body and blood of Jesus, then why did the apostles forbid Gentile Christians from consuming blood? If John 6 was literal, then clearly the Eucharist is an
absolute requirement for salvation, meaning one can be a true believer, but still go to Hell because they didn't eat bread and drink wine. Is that truly the Gospel? Why would Jesus lie to us and say that if we believe in him, we are saved? Why didn't Peter tell the house of Cornelius they weren't saved until they had the Eucharist? Why didn't Paul tell us that? Do you truly not see the problem here?
