GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Infallibility ?  (Read 3385 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #70 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 10:43:45 »
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  www.proecclesia.com - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #70 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 10:43:45 »

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6190
  • Manna: 122
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #71 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:09:16 »
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  www.proecclesia.com - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #71 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:09:16 »

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #72 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:11:26 »
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  www.proecclesia.com - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6190
  • Manna: 122
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #73 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:18:15 »
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  www.proecclesia.com - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #73 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:18:15 »

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #74 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:31:58 »
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  www.proecclesia.com - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then they must have some other infallible authority in order for them to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.
« Last Edit: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:45:15 by Catholica »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #74 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:31:58 »



Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6190
  • Manna: 122
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #75 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 11:49:28 »
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  www.proecclesia.com - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you must have some other infallible authority in order for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.


Surely I reject the infallibility claim made by the RCC, and in fact I am not alone in that matter.
Scripture does not mention it, none of the early church fathers ever mentioned it, church history never mentioned it...only until 1870 when the RCC found it necessary to officially declare it.

So out of the last 2000 years, 1800 years people have done without infallibility. That includes even the RCC herself.
Perhaps you should look back and wonder how 1800 years of church history without access to Papal infallibility could possibly have resulted in saved souls.

Apparently it worked for them, and it also works for me.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6263
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #76 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 12:56:11 »
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  www.proecclesia.com - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you must have some other infallible authority in order for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.


Surely I reject the infallibility claim made by the RCC, and in fact I am not alone in that matter.
Scripture does not mention it, none of the early church fathers ever mentioned it, church history never mentioned it...only until 1870 when the RCC found it necessary to officially declare it.

So out of the last 2000 years, 1800 years people have done without infallibility. That includes even the RCC herself.
Perhaps you should look back and wonder how 1800 years of church history without access to Papal infallibility could possibly have resulted in saved souls.

Apparently it worked for them, and it also works for me.


It's not surprising to me that you don't want to talk about the problems with your own belief system.

If there is no infallible authority, then we don't know whether the Bible is trustworthy at all, we don't know whether the Gospel promises have been distorted, and we don't even know whether there is salvation in the name of Jesus.

If there is no infallible authority, therefore, then truth is effectively lost, and if truth is lost, then we have no idea if Jesus Christ is God nor whether anyone is saved at all.

So attacking the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility is completely hypocritical.  Catholics at least have a system which actually allows for the possibility that truth is not lost, unlike the system of "Bible only".

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #77 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 15:56:46 »
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  www.proecclesia.com - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you must have some other infallible authority in order for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.


Surely I reject the infallibility claim made by the RCC, and in fact I am not alone in that matter.
Scripture does not mention it, none of the early church fathers ever mentioned it, church history never mentioned it...only until 1870 when the RCC found it necessary to officially declare it.

So out of the last 2000 years, 1800 years people have done without infallibility. That includes even the RCC herself.
Perhaps you should look back and wonder how 1800 years of church history without access to Papal infallibility could possibly have resulted in saved souls.

Apparently it worked for them, and it also works for me.


It's not surprising to me that you don't want to talk about the problems with your own belief system.

If there is no infallible authority, then we don't know whether the Bible is trustworthy at all, we don't know whether the Gospel promises have been distorted, and we don't even know whether there is salvation in the name of Jesus.

If there is no infallible authority, therefore, then truth is effectively lost, and if truth is lost, then we have no idea if Jesus Christ is God nor whether anyone is saved at all.

So attacking the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility is completely hypocritical.  Catholics at least have a system which actually allows for the possibility that truth is not lost, unlike the system of "Bible only".


That's no so.  I have never found yet anything untrustworthy in scripture. I did not need the pope to tell me that. How ever we only have to look at history of your church to see untrustworthyness

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #78 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 16:28:12 »
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  www.proecclesia.com - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you must have some other infallible authority in order for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.


Surely I reject the infallibility claim made by the RCC, and in fact I am not alone in that matter.
Scripture does not mention it, none of the early church fathers ever mentioned it, church history never mentioned it...only until 1870 when the RCC found it necessary to officially declare it.

So out of the last 2000 years, 1800 years people have done without infallibility. That includes even the RCC herself.
Perhaps you should look back and wonder how 1800 years of church history without access to Papal infallibility could possibly have resulted in saved souls.

Apparently it worked for them, and it also works for me.


It's not surprising to me that you don't want to talk about the problems with your own belief system.

If there is no infallible authority, then we don't know whether the Bible is trustworthy at all, we don't know whether the Gospel promises have been distorted, and we don't even know whether there is salvation in the name of Jesus.

If there is no infallible authority, therefore, then truth is effectively lost, and if truth is lost, then we have no idea if Jesus Christ is God nor whether anyone is saved at all.

So attacking the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility is completely hypocritical.  Catholics at least have a system which actually allows for the possibility that truth is not lost, unlike the system of "Bible only".


That's no so.  I have never found yet anything untrustworthy in scripture. I did not need the pope to tell me that. How ever we only have to look at history of your church to see untrustworthyness


Of course you have never found anything untrustworthy in the Scriptures, the ones you do have were compiled by the institution that has authority here on earth - the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. Now if you only had the books that were taken out by men and a proper interpretation you would, as they say, be cooking with gas.

LexKnight

  • Guest
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #79 on: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 18:41:17 »
We know the books in the Scriptures are Valid and Inerrant, they were written by men who had a pure understanding of the Lord. On that basis alone the Scriptures does possess an authority in Truth. So with that said, if someone did come with a doctrine that contradicts what's already written, it would be shown to be in error, claims of infallibility or no (and yes I'm including all sects of Christianity with this, not just the RCC).

Offline wincam

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #80 on: Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 04:05:27 »
We know the books in the Scriptures are Valid and Inerrant, they were written by men who had a pure understanding of the Lord. On that basis alone the Scriptures does possess an authority in Truth. So with that said, if someone did come with a doctrine that contradicts what's already written, it would be shown to be in error, claims of infallibility or no (and yes I'm including all sects of Christianity with this, not just the RCC).


what is accepted and not in doubt is the inerrancy of scriptures - what is in doubt is the many different and even opposite fallible interpretations by Tom,Dick and Harry - wincam

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6190
  • Manna: 122
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #81 on: Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 04:10:41 »
We know the books in the Scriptures are Valid and Inerrant, they were written by men who had a pure understanding of the Lord. On that basis alone the Scriptures does possess an authority in Truth. So with that said, if someone did come with a doctrine that contradicts what's already written, it would be shown to be in error, claims of infallibility or no (and yes I'm including all sects of Christianity with this, not just the RCC).


what is accepted and not in doubt is the inerrancy of scriptures - what is in doubt is the many different and even opposite fallible interpretations by Tom,Dick and Harry - wincam

Exactly. So we have Tom, Dick, Harry and RCC.
Similar to the RCC, Tom, Dick and Harry can also claim they are infallible based on nothing more but their own desire to be right.

Offline wincam

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #82 on: Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 04:34:36 »
We know the books in the Scriptures are Valid and Inerrant, they were written by men who had a pure understanding of the Lord. On that basis alone the Scriptures does possess an authority in Truth. So with that said, if someone did come with a doctrine that contradicts what's already written, it would be shown to be in error, claims of infallibility or no (and yes I'm including all sects of Christianity with this, not just the RCC).


what is accepted and not in doubt is the inerrancy of scriptures - what is in doubt is the many different and even opposite fallible interpretations by Tom,Dick and Harry - wincam

Exactly. So we have Tom, Dick, Harry and RCC.
Similar to the RCC, Tom, Dick and Harry can also claim they are infallible based on nothing more but their own desire to be right.

not just can but have done and continue to do so as more fallible than the Pope as t his and others posts even here suggest - wincam




































Offline skeeter

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1625
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #83 on: Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 05:18:37 »
We know the books in the Scriptures are Valid and Inerrant, they were written by men who had a pure understanding of the Lord. On that basis alone the Scriptures does possess an authority in Truth. So with that said, if someone did come with a doctrine that contradicts what's already written, it would be shown to be in error, claims of infallibility or no (and yes I'm including all sects of Christianity with this, not just the RCC).
what is accepted and not in doubt is the inerrancy of scriptures - what is in doubt is the many different and even opposite fallible interpretations by Tom,Dick and Harry - wincam

given by the RCC.  verses Catholics give (including in the CC) never support what they are listed to support.  I always look them up.  Most don't even have anything to do with the actual verses listed.

Offline wincam

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #84 on: Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 08:44:46 »
We know the books in the Scriptures are Valid and Inerrant, they were written by men who had a pure understanding of the Lord. On that basis alone the Scriptures does possess an authority in Truth. So with that said, if someone did come with a doctrine that contradicts what's already written, it would be shown to be in error, claims of infallibility or no (and yes I'm including all sects of Christianity with this, not just the RCC).
what is accepted and not in doubt is the inerrancy of scriptures - what is in doubt is the many different and even opposite fallible interpretations by Tom,Dick and Harry - wincam

given by the RCC.  verses Catholics give (including in the CC) never support what they are listed to support.  I always look them up.  Most don't even have anything to do with the actual verses listed.



ofr course, naturally, according to you but not according to Catholics - so could it just be that fallible you are wrong or is that not possible - wincam 

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #85 on: Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 09:54:28 »
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  www.proecclesia.com - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you must have some other infallible authority in order for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.


Surely I reject the infallibility claim made by the RCC, and in fact I am not alone in that matter.
Scripture does not mention it, none of the early church fathers ever mentioned it, church history never mentioned it...only until 1870 when the RCC found it necessary to officially declare it.

So out of the last 2000 years, 1800 years people have done without infallibility. That includes even the RCC herself.
Perhaps you should look back and wonder how 1800 years of church history without access to Papal infallibility could possibly have resulted in saved souls.

Apparently it worked for them, and it also works for me.


It's not surprising to me that you don't want to talk about the problems with your own belief system.

If there is no infallible authority, then we don't know whether the Bible is trustworthy at all, we don't know whether the Gospel promises have been distorted, and we don't even know whether there is salvation in the name of Jesus.

If there is no infallible authority, therefore, then truth is effectively lost, and if truth is lost, then we have no idea if Jesus Christ is God nor whether anyone is saved at all.

So attacking the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility is completely hypocritical.  Catholics at least have a system which actually allows for the possibility that truth is not lost, unlike the system of "Bible only".


That's no so.  I have never found yet anything untrustworthy in scripture. I did not need the pope to tell me that. How ever we only have to look at history of your church to see untrustworthyness


Of course you have never found anything untrustworthy in the Scriptures, the ones you do have were compiled by the institution that has authority here on earth - the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. Now if you only had the books that were taken out by men and a proper interpretation you would, as they say, be cooking with gas.


They compiled them, they did not write them. The apostle were spirit led.  Your same old argument obout universal Catholic church has been seen through long ago. I have looked at those books.  Tell me which modern version do most Catholics read today. How much are those taken out books  used for faith and salvation today by Catholics overall?

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #86 on: Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 13:41:30 »
besides the magisterum, Catholics also have lay Catholic organisations as a check on infallibility one such may be found at  www.proecclesia.com - with Protestants, however, it seems there is no such constraints and anyone and no one at one and the same time can be infallible and of course all more infallible than the Pope - wincam



I would never claim to be infallible and moreover I would reject any man that claims he is infallible, but at the end of the day we have the word of God as our source, to which no books or websites can equival.


How do you know infallibly know that the Bible is, in its entirety, the entire word of God? That is, how do you know that it contains ALL the books that are the word of God and ONLY books that are the word of God: that there are no books there that are not the word of God, and that there are no other books that should be in the Bible that are the word of God?


I thought one of the things the Catholic Church prides herself for is that she "gave us" the Canon?
So are you telling me that there is a possibility that there are more books that should be in the Canon that the RCC "infallibly" established?
Seems to me you are arguing with yourself.


Not at all, I was addressing the post to Alan, but the same could be addressed to anyone who follows "Scripture alone" and refuses to believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Pope.


That does not make sense.

The RCC selected a number of books and put in in the Canon.
The RCC declared the Canon closed.

For you to turn around and say that possibly the Canon is not complete and there may be other scripture that should be in the Canon is admittance that the infallible decision of the Canon is not infallible after all.


You are not understanding what I am saying.

The fact that the Bible Canon is infallibly closed and set is not a problem for me because I believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church, who set the Canon.

If someone (you, it seems) rejects the infallibility of the Catholic Church, then you must have some other infallible authority in order for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, that the books there in are inspired, and that only those books are inspired.


Surely I reject the infallibility claim made by the RCC, and in fact I am not alone in that matter.
Scripture does not mention it, none of the early church fathers ever mentioned it, church history never mentioned it...only until 1870 when the RCC found it necessary to officially declare it.

So out of the last 2000 years, 1800 years people have done without infallibility. That includes even the RCC herself.
Perhaps you should look back and wonder how 1800 years of church history without access to Papal infallibility could possibly have resulted in saved souls.

Apparently it worked for them, and it also works for me.


It's not surprising to me that you don't want to talk about the problems with your own belief system.

If there is no infallible authority, then we don't know whether the Bible is trustworthy at all, we don't know whether the Gospel promises have been distorted, and we don't even know whether there is salvation in the name of Jesus.

If there is no infallible authority, therefore, then truth is effectively lost, and if truth is lost, then we have no idea if Jesus Christ is God nor whether anyone is saved at all.

So attacking the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility is completely hypocritical.  Catholics at least have a system which actually allows for the possibility that truth is not lost, unlike the system of "Bible only".



Actually infallibility allows for the exact opposite to happen

Offline skeeter

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1625
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #87 on: Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 21:45:26 »
It's not surprising to me that you don't want to talk about the problems with your own belief system.

If there is no infallible authority, then we don't know whether the Bible is trustworthy at all, we don't know whether the Gospel promises have been distorted, and we don't even know whether there is salvation in the name of Jesus.
as long as Catholics lump all Christians in as 'Protestants', they are sunk.  There are many, many protestants who aren't even Christian.  And many Christians who aren't protestants.  Catholics like the 'it's us against all of you' position they put themselves in.

There IS an infallible authority.  He is called God.  And yes, IF we know God (thru Christ) we do know the Bible (His word)is trustworthy. And we do know that the Gospel has not been distorted.  If we believe God's word (the Bible) and God thru Christ, then we do know  salvation is thru Christ. If you don't have salvation thru Christ, then yes, you will be all mixed up and not know what is truth and what isn't.  You will trust in those false teachers.

If there is no infallible authority, therefore, then truth is effectively lost,

and if truth is lost, then we have no idea if Jesus Christ is God nor whether anyone is saved at all.

So attacking the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility is completely hypocritical. Catholics at least have a system which actually allows for the possibility that truth is not lost, unlike the system of "Bible only".
There IS an infallible authority.  It's God, thru the Holy Spirit and His word - the Bible.  Not the RCC who wants to be infallible, in place of God.

The RCC is not God and therefore, is not infallible.  Only God is infallible.  The only truth is from God, we find it in His word (not the CC or from the ecfs).

Offline kensington

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6816
  • Manna: 356
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #88 on: Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 22:25:21 »
I agree, God is infallible and His word is true.  He stands by His word given to us by the Holy Spirit.  "He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood and His name is called, "The Word of God".  Revelation 19:13.

The Catholics take credit for giving us the Word of God... But that is not true.  God gave us the Word of God by His Spirit and He used fallible men to bring it about. God did this, not man. 

God spoke the word, God inspired the word, God told man to write it down, to go into all the world and share it, God alone made sure that we have a Bible today. 

LexKnight

  • Guest
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #89 on: Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 22:39:14 »
I agree, God is infallible and His word is true.  He stands by His word given to us by the Holy Spirit.  "He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood and His name is called, "The Word of God".  Revelation 19:13.

The Catholics take credit for giving us the Word of God... But that is not true.  God gave us the Word of God by His Spirit and He used fallible men to bring it about. God did this, not man. 

God spoke the word, God inspired the word, God told man to write it down, to go into all the world and share it, God alone made sure that we have a Bible today.

And even then, the apostles, prophets, and wise men who penned the Scriptures weren't Roman Catholics themselves.

Offline kensington

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6816
  • Manna: 356
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #90 on: Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 02:52:10 »
I agree, they weren't.  When you think about it...  The Apostle's were Blood bought, Born Again, Spirit Filled, tongue talking Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. 

A far cry from what Catholics claim to be.

Offline wincam

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #91 on: Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 06:30:16 »
I agree, they weren't.  When you think about it...  The Apostle's were Blood bought, Born Again, Spirit Filled, tongue talking Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. 

A far cry from what Catholics claim to be.


yes - they were born again as Christians for the least Christian is greater than any non Christian and even the least Christian does not need to be born again as a Christian - wincam

Offline skeeter

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1625
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #92 on: Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 07:41:46 »
I agree, they weren't.  When you think about it...  The Apostle's were Blood bought, Born Again, Spirit Filled, tongue talking Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. 

A far cry from what Catholics claim to be.
yes - they were born again as Christians for the least Christian is greater than any non Christian and even the least Christian does not need to be born again as a Christian - wincam
one is not a Christian unless they are born again.

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #93 on: Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 08:10:30 »
I agree, they weren't.  When you think about it...  The Apostle's were Blood bought, Born Again, Spirit Filled, tongue talking Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. 

A far cry from what Catholics claim to be.


yes - they were born again as Christians for the least Christian is greater than any non Christian and even the least Christian does not need to be born again as a Christian - wincam


No a Christian does not need to a born again as a Christian. The admonition is you must be born again of the spirit.  That the hang up for many.  The carnally minded have a real hard time with it.

Offline wincam

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #94 on: Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 11:45:07 »
I agree, they weren't.  When you think about it...  The Apostle's were Blood bought, Born Again, Spirit Filled, tongue talking Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. 

A far cry from what Catholics claim to be.


yes - they were born again as Christians for the least Christian is greater than any non Christian and even the least Christian does not need to be born again as a Christian - wincam


No a Christian does not need to a born again as a Christian. The admonition is you must be born again of the spirit.  That the hang up for many.  The carnally minded have a real hard time with it.

imho it seems to me that to be a Christian one must be born of water and the spirit - wincam

Offline kensington

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6816
  • Manna: 356
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #95 on: Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 18:01:46 »
Being born again of the Spirit of Christ = Born again Christian.  Nothing carnal about it. 

The Spirit we are born into is the Spirit of Christ Jesus.  And that is what makes us Born again Christians. 

If you are not born again into the Spirit of Jesus Christ, you are not born again, you are not the church, you are not a Christian and you are not saved. Read the word. 


We are born of water when we are born through our mother's womb..
« Last Edit: Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 18:04:43 by kensington »

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #96 on: Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 19:43:03 »
I agree, they weren't.  When you think about it...  The Apostle's were Blood bought, Born Again, Spirit Filled, tongue talking Pentecostal Charismatic Christians. 

A far cry from what Catholics claim to be.


yes - they were born again as Christians for the least Christian is greater than any non Christian and even the least Christian does not need to be born again as a Christian - wincam


No a Christian does not need to a born again as a Christian. The admonition is you must be born again of the spirit.  That the hang up for many.  The carnally minded have a real hard time with it.

imho it seems to me that to be a Christian one must be born of water and the spirit - wincam

† There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born againa, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 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? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water -  and of -  the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7

 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born againb. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9

 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?


 The born of water is metioned only once and states  -and of-   water signifying two different things. It is clear that being born of water does not signify one is born of the spirit as one event took place for both. Jesus went on to say that being Born of the spirit is to join into the unseen kingdom of God.  That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit. All that is carnal fleshly is enmity  against God.

A spiritual relationship is not an option hence one must be born again. Water baptism which is separate is  signifying being cleansed of our sin and states a new confession of faith.


« Last Edit: Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 21:40:38 by mclees8 »

Offline kensington

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6816
  • Manna: 356
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #97 on: Sun Oct 11, 2015 - 22:07:32 »
Actually, we are not born in Baptism, but we are buried with Christ and raised again.

Colossians 2:12. having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.


Offline skeeter

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1625
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #98 on: Mon Oct 12, 2015 - 00:39:31 »
Being born again of the Spirit of Christ = Born again Christian.  Nothing carnal about it. 

The Spirit we are born into is the Spirit of Christ Jesus.  And that is what makes us Born again Christians. 

If you are not born again into the Spirit of Jesus Christ, you are not born again, you are not the church, you are not a Christian and you are not saved. Read the word. 


We are born of water when we are born through our mother's womb..

 ::thumbsup::

Offline wincam

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #99 on: Mon Oct 12, 2015 - 04:45:22 »
Being born again of the Spirit of Christ = Born again Christian.  Nothing carnal about it. 

The Spirit we are born into is the Spirit of Christ Jesus.  And that is what makes us Born again Christians. 

If you are not born again into the Spirit of Jesus Christ, you are not born again, you are not the church, you are not a Christian and you are not saved. Read the word. 


We are born of water when we are born through our mother's womb..


no doubt but we are born as Christians when we are baptized "go,therefore, baptizing them in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Ghost[Matt.28:19] - also consider Christian confirmation - wincam

 ::thumbsup::

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #100 on: Mon Oct 12, 2015 - 11:05:45 »
Being born again of the Spirit of Christ = Born again Christian.  Nothing carnal about it. 

The Spirit we are born into is the Spirit of Christ Jesus.  And that is what makes us Born again Christians. 

If you are not born again into the Spirit of Jesus Christ, you are not born again, you are not the church, you are not a Christian and you are not saved. Read the word. 


We are born of water when we are born through our mother's womb..

None the less I have said it correctly.

Born of water from the womb is a carnal concept

Offline wincam

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #101 on: Tue Oct 13, 2015 - 08:23:06 »
Nicodemus was not a Christian who hads to be born again - so what Jesus was really saying that if one is not a Christian one must be born again as a Christian by water and spirit - we have been specially chosen to be Christians and fulfill this essential requirement imho -  wincam

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #102 on: Wed Oct 14, 2015 - 19:14:53 »
Nicodemus was not a Christian who hads to be born again - so what Jesus was really saying that if one is not a Christian one must be born again as a Christian by water and spirit - we have been specially chosen to be Christians and fulfill this essential requirement imho -  wincam

Nicodemus did not have to be Christian.  remember Jesus said to him after, Are you not aleader of Israel and you know not these things. Did not the prophets know the things of the spirit. To be born from above means to understand the heavenly nature of God.  It is only by the Holy Spirit in us that we can truly understand The kingdom. The kingdom is not made with hands. It is not a place you can travel to physically or touch its walls. This is why Jesus said the spirit is like wind. You feel it but you don not know from where it comes .  I told you the carnal things of his world cannot please God. No religious ritual stained glass window and pointed pinnacles , religious robes. The Temple of God is built in the heart an relates with God in unseen places.  You must be born again not of earthly things but heavenly.
« Last Edit: Wed Oct 14, 2015 - 20:50:46 by mclees8 »

Offline wincam

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #103 on: Thu Oct 15, 2015 - 03:26:30 »
not at all - you have made this up to suit your own imaginations - Nicodemus as a leader of Israel was a bit like you and other supposed religious leaders too heavenly minded but no earthly use and that is why he had to be born again as a Christian for the least Christian is greater than he or even John the Baptist - stop adding and subtracting and just simply simply believe[Jn.20:31] - wincam

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: Infallibility ?
« Reply #104 on: Thu Oct 15, 2015 - 09:12:31 »
not at all - you have made this up to suit your own imaginations - Nicodemus as a leader of Israel was a bit like you and other supposed religious leaders too heavenly minded but no earthly use and that is why he had to be born again as a Christian for the least Christian is greater than he or even John the Baptist - stop adding and subtracting and just simply simply believe[Jn.20:31] - wincam

Why would you so resist the truth. I made nothing up because Jesus is the one who taught this not I. It is more that you are more earthy minded to know God in the spirit

Look at John 4: When Jesus met the women at he well. She said I perceive you are a prophet: my Fathers worship on this mountain , but the Jews say Jerusalem is the only place to worship God.  Jesus said then to her women the time has come when on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will the true worshipers, worship the Father,  God is Spirit and those who truly worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
 The Lord called us to be spiritually minded not earthly minded.  To love God in the spirit from the temple of the heart will be manifest in the  life we live and love our neighbor.

I do not know how to make it any plainer to you.  The  carnally minded cannot please God. If God is spirit how can we then please or have relationship with carnal material things.

You wonder at the Vatican how great and beautiful it is, surly God is here.  The disciples thought that also when they said to Jesus see how beautiful the Jerusalem Temple is. Jesus said to them that not one stone will be left on this place. I tell you that in the same way the Vatican will be a ruins.

If then the church that Jesus established was not about  grand religious places where is our worship then to be established.  Paul said know ye not ye are the Temple and the spirit of God is in you.   
If I am taking all this from Scripture then How can you say I make these things up. 
« Last Edit: Thu Oct 15, 2015 - 09:35:50 by mclees8 »