When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[tom55]

tom55,

No sinful, fallible, imperfect human beings, whether at the Council of Trent or Council of Nicea, can produce an infallible document or 'infallibly reiterate' anything.

Oz

Do you think the decision at the Council of Jerusalem was infallible?

They wrote a letter (document), about their decistion and that decision was binding on all Christians. Were the men who made that decision sinful, fallible and imperfect?

 

[epostle1]

tom55,

No sinful, fallible, imperfect human beings, whether at the Council of Trent or Council of Nicea, can produce an infallible document or 'infallibly reiterate' anything.

Oz

Well, that rules out the New Testament as infallible, unless you think it fell from the sky. The canon of scripture did not come about by itself. It came about by 4 centuries of discernment by the Church and no amount of bible origin fantasies can change that fact.

I have observed that no sola scripturist can understand what infallibility means, even with 1000 explanations, because it is totally contrary to the mindset. Briefly, infallibility means teaching without error; it has nothing to do with impeccability, which means living without sinning. Infallibility comes from the words of Jesus, not popes, bishops or councils. Infallibility is a promise of Jesus, not some Catholic invention.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. (heaven cannot bind an error) This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church ALWAYS. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.
The Church : scripturecatholic

The Bible teaches that the true Church is infallible and indefectible. That is a promise of God. One either accepts it in faith or not. That is the task: does one accept all of what the Bible teaches, or just selectively, with man-made traditions added to it?

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9).

So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Dialogue With a Calvinist

 

[OzSpen]

Do you think the decision at the Council of Jerusalem was infallible?

They wrote a letter (document), about their decistion and that decision was binding on all Christians. Were the men who made that decision sinful, fallible and imperfect?

No human decision by sinful, fallible human beings can produce an infallible document unless it is theopneustos - breathed out by God (the only document with that authority is Scripture).

 

[OzSpen]

Well, that rules out the New Testament as infallible, unless you think it fell from the sky. The canon of scripture did not come about by itself. It came about by 4 centuries of discernment by the Church and no amount of bible origin fantasies can change that fact.

I have observed that no sola scripturist can understand what infallibility means, even with 1000 explanations, because it is totally contrary to the mindset. Briefly, infallibility means teaching without error; it has nothing to do with impeccability, which means living without sinning. Infallibility comes from the words of Jesus, not popes, bishops or councils. Infallibility is a promise of Jesus, not some Catholic invention.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. (heaven cannot bind an error) This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church ALWAYS. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.
The Church : scripturecatholic

The Bible teaches that the true Church is infallible and indefectible. That is a promise of God. One either accepts it in faith or not. That is the task: does one accept all of what the Bible teaches, or just selectively, with man-made traditions added to it?

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9).

So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Dialogue With a Calvinist

You miss one important factor with regard to the Bible. It is theopneustos (breathed out by God), according to 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV).

 

[epostle1]

You miss one important factor with regard to the Bible. It is theopneustos (breathed out by God), according to 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV).

Yes, I should add that in, even though it is a little off topic and I can't cover every important factor. The theopneustos of the Bible is never pitted against the Church. This leads to setting the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that.

If it weren't for the gift of infallibility given by Jesus to the Church, there would be no Bible. Just individuals subtracting whatever didn't suit their opinions.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, I should add that in, even though it is a little off topic and I can't cover every important factor. The theopneustos of the Bible is never pitted against the Church. This leads to setting the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that.

If it weren't for the gift of infallibility given by Jesus to the Church, there would be no Bible. Just individuals subtracting whatever didn't suit their opinions.

Please provide Scripture that demonstrates that the gift of infallibility was given to the church.

 

[epostle1]

Please provide Scripture that demonstrates that the gift of infallibility was given to the church.

I did, in post #264. That's just 7 of them, there are plenty more. You want me to provide scriptures after I have provided scriptures. :wacko:

You prove my point when I said, "I have observed that no sola scripturist can understand what infallibility means, even with 1000 explanations". That's my opinion, which I am entitled to make the same as you. You can't get it, which is why you ask for scriptures that I already gave.

Beginning in the fourth century there was Church wide consensus that the Old Testament contained 46 books. That number of books is identified in the ancient Alexandrian (Christian) list of Scriptures as opposed to the Palestinian (Jewish) list that has fewer books. The decision to favor the Alexandrian list was subscribed to at the Council of Hippo in 393 and reaffirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397, decreed by Pope Damasus in 405, reaffirmed at the Council of Florence 1441, and the historic canon was reaffirmed at the Council of Trent. There were no "additions" during this entire period of history; those who say otherwise are ignorant polemicists.
We use the SAME BIBLE today as used in 393 AD.

Luther's followers left out Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch, as well as parts of Daniel and Esther because they didn't sit well with man made Protestant traditions, which is what you are indirectly trying to defend.

 

[OzSpen]

I did, in post #264. That's just 7 of them, there are plenty more. You want me to provide scriptures after I have provided scriptures. :wacko:

You prove my point when I said, "I have observed that no sola scripturist can understand what infallibility means, even with 1000 explanations". That's my opinion, which I am entitled to make the same as you. You can't get it, which is why you ask for scriptures that I already gave.

Beginning in the fourth century there was Church wide consensus that the Old Testament contained 46 books. That number of books is identified in the ancient Alexandrian (Christian) list of Scriptures as opposed to the Palestinian (Jewish) list that has fewer books. The decision to favor the Alexandrian list was subscribed to at the Council of Hippo in 393 and reaffirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397, decreed by Pope Damasus in 405, reaffirmed at the Council of Florence 1441, and the historic canon was reaffirmed at the Council of Trent. There were no "additions" during this entire period of history; those who say otherwise are ignorant polemicists.
We use the SAME BIBLE today as used in 393 AD.

Luther's followers left out Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch, as well as parts of Daniel and Esther because they didn't sit well with man made Protestant traditions, which is what you are indirectly trying to defend.

Kepha,

I went through all of the Scriptures you gave in #264 and not one of them stated that the gift of infallibility was given to the church. Not one!

I did find that Kepha imposed that view on the Scriptures. I'm a serious student of the Word and reject eisegesis, which is what you have done with those Scriptures.

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

If it weren't for the gift of infallibility given by Jesus to the Church,

Another lie i am not surprised

 

[epostle1]

Kepha,

I went through all of the Scriptures you gave in #264 and not one of them stated that the gift of infallibility was given to the church. Not one!

I did find that Kepha imposed that view on the Scriptures. I'm a serious student of the Word and reject eisegesis, which is what you have done with those Scriptures.

Oz

Where is the cohesive alternative explanation and exegesis? You offered none, just an empty accusation of "eisegesis".
It's not my fault you can't tell the difference between MEANING and TERM. The TERM infallibility is not there, the MEANING is.
The TERMS "Trinity and Incarnation" are not in the Bible, but the MEANING is.

Let's break it down to what you deny:

Matt. 10:20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Can the Father speak errors through the Apostles and their successors? No, He can't. That's called infallibility. You are claiming the Father can speak errors through the Apostles, which is a total falsehood. You are claiming the Father is fallible. (I know you don't think that, I am using hyperbole).

Matt. 16:18 What year did the gates of hell prevail against the Church? Do you understand what "not prevail" means? This is a problem verse for Protestants because Jesus is giving a promise that the Church He builds will never be prevailed upon by the gates of hell. That demands infallibility (that the sola scriptura mindset prevents you from seeing) Without infallibility, it's merely a human institution teaching errors, which the Bible says is impossible. Protestantism contradicts Jesus' promise. Either Jesus lied, or the Church is infallible.

Matthew 18:17-18 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Does Jesus say, "if he refuses to read the scriptures"? No, clearly Jesus is giving authority to the Church to excommunicate, which requires infallibility (which is hard to see when wearing sola scriptura welding goggles).

Matthew 28:20... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
"...and lo, I will take a vacation until the 15th century" :wacko:

What year did Jesus cancel His promise? This is the anti-biblical position you must take in order to deny infallibility which means
I am with you always, to the close of the age.” By denying infallibility, you are claiming Jesus is fallible, or He is not with us, or He was with us but left. Which of these false options do you choose?

The Bible teaches that the true Church is infallible and indefectible. That is a promise of God.

Infallibility, according to the Catholic Church, means that the pope (or an ecumenical council in agreement with a pope) cannot err in a teaching on faith and morals that is intended as binding on all Catholics. It isn’t the equivalent of “inspiration,” and it doesn’t mean that the author is morally or otherwise perfect, more intelligent than others, etc. It’s a supernatural gift granted by God’s grace alone, for His purposes, in order to uphold and make known (with certainty, in faith) spiritual and theological truth.

Since infallibility is inferior to, and a less extraordinary gift than inspiration, we should not be more surprised at it than we are at inspiration, or think it is less likely to occur, or implausible. God worked through the writers of the Bible (inspiration means, literally, “God-breathed”), and this made it possible for the Bible to be without error. Some of the biblical writers, like David, Paul, Matthew, and Peter, had been great sinners at one time or other in their lives. Yet they were used by God to write inspired Scripture. Even in Old Testament times, some were granted this gift of special protection from error; for example, the Levites, who were teachers, among other things:

Malachi 2:6-8: “True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.”

Prophets routinely purported to proclaim the very “word of the LORD.” This is a much greater claim than infallibility under limited conditions. Papal infallibility is primarily a preventive, or “negative” guarantee, not positive inspiration. It is easy to argue, then, that infallibility is a far less noteworthy gift than the “revelation on the spot” that we observe in the prophets:

​

1 Samuel 15:10: “The word of the LORD came to Samuel:”
2 Samuel 23:2: “The Spirit of the LORD speaks by me, his word is upon my tongue.” [King David]
1 Chronicles 17:3: “But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan,”
Isaiah 38:4: “Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah:”
Jeremiah 26:15: “. . . the LORD sent me to you to speak all these words in your ears.”
Ezekiel 33:1: “The word of the LORD came to me:” [“word of the LORD” appears 60 times in the Book of Ezekiel]
Haggai 1:13: “Then Haggai, the messenger of the LORD, spoke to the people with the LORD’s message, ‘I am with you, says the LORD.'”

Objection:
But that was in the Old Testament. Prophets had to have a special word from God to proclaim their message, because they didn’t know the future. That doesn’t prove that any such gift exists today. Even if the apostles had this gift, it was only for the time when the gospel was first proclaimed (they also performed relatively more miracles).

Reply to Objection
To the contrary: the prophets received their inspiration by the Holy Spirit (2 Chron. 24:20; Neh. 9:30; Zech. 7:12). The Holy Spirit is now given to all Christians (Jn. 15:26; 1 Cor. 3:16), so it is perfectly possible and plausible that an even greater measure of the Holy Spirit would be given to leaders of the Church who have the responsibility to teach, since James wrote:

“Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness” (Jas. 3:1).

The disciples were reassured by Jesus: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (Jn. 16:13; cf. 8:32), so surely it makes sense that shepherds of the Christian flock would be given an extra measure of protection in order to better fulfill their duties.


satire:

 

[mjrhealth]

Can the Father speak errors through the Apostles and their successors? No, He can't. That's called infallibility. You are claiming the Father can speak errors through the Apostles, which is a total falsehood. You are claiming the Father is fallible. (I know you don't think that, I am using hyperbole).

But you are making a false claim that teh Pope stand in place of Christ and is His representative, yet even with all the evidence thst disproves this great lie you wont accept it. God apeaks to all men, there is no man upon this earh tthat has any more than any other, to insist there is, is a lie and the very reason why so may are in slavery, bondage to there religion and not free in Christ. So may false shepherds all doomed to destruction. The Blind following the blind, what a great shame and a slap in the face for our creator and Jesus who have done so much for man.

 

[tom55]

No human decision by sinful, fallible human beings can produce an infallible document unless it is theopneustos - breathed out by God (the only document with that authority is Scripture).

I think we are in agreement then: They (the men at the Council of Jerusalem) did produce and infallible document because they were led by the Holy Spirit.

Did that ability (authority), to teach infallibly and bind upon all Christians their decision, end with the Apostles?

 

[tom55]

Please provide Scripture that demonstrates that the gift of infallibility was given to the church.

If infallibility was not given to the church....to whom was it given?

 

[tom55]

No human decision by sinful, fallible human beings can produce an infallible document unless it is theopneustos - breathed out by God (the only document with that authority is Scripture).

The decision at Jerusalem did in FACT produce an infallible document that was binding on all Christians.

That infallible document was in FACT produced by sinful, fallible human beings.

Those human beings were acting on Gods behalf and were in FACT given the authority by Jesus to bind on earth what was to be bound in heaven and loose on earth what will be loosed in heaven.

Do you believe that the ability to bind and loosen was taken away?

Do you believe the ability for man to produce and infallible document/decision that is binding on all Christians was dissolved when the last Apostle died?

 

[epostle1]

But you are making a false claim that teh Pope stand in place of Christ and is His representative, yet even with all the evidence thst disproves this great lie you wont accept it

. Are you refusing to answer the question? Is the Father fallibile or infallible???
How about I flood the thread with a long list of Protestant scholars who agree that Peter is the Rock on which Christ builds His Church.

God apeaks to all men, there is no man upon this earh tthat has any more than any other, to insist there is, is a lie and the very reason why so may are in slavery, bondage to there religion and not free in Christ. So may false shepherds all doomed to destruction. The Blind following the blind, what a great shame and a slap in the face for our creator and Jesus who have done so much for man.

If I believed half the lies about the Catholic Church as you do, I would hate her twice as much.

You are preaching that Jesus builds junk, and that He LIED about His promised protection. BAD BEHAVIOR has NOTHING TO DO WITH INFALLIBLE TEACHING AND bad leaders never taught anything anyway.

 

[epostle1]

Infallibility: In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. In this article the subject will be treated under the following heads:

I. True Meaning of Infallibility
II. Proof of the Church's Infallibility
III. Organs of Infallibility
Ecumenical Councils
The Pope
Their Mutual Relations
IV. Scope and Object of Infallibility
V. What Teaching is Infallible?

 

[tom55]

Please provide Scripture that demonstrates that the gift of infallibility was given to the church.

Are you asking for scripture about the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth that was built on a rock. Are you asking about the infallibility that was given to the Church and if you won't accept the church's teaching then you are to be treated as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector. (1Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:18, Matthew 18:17)

The Church leaders that were told to "stay in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer" (1Timothy 1:3). How can one command another not to teach false doctrines unless they have the TRUE doctrine? If they have the TRUE doctrine are they not infallible?

How can The Church not be infallible when scripture tells us that we should all agree so that there be no divisions among us and that we be united in the same mind and the same judgment? If we are all united in the same mind and judgments on the interpretation of scripture wouldn't that make The Church infallible? (1Corinthians 1:10) Which takes us back to Matthew 18:17....if you don't agree with the Church you are to be treated as a pagan or tax collector. It doesn't say if you don't agree with bible you are to be treated a certain way. It says if you don't agree with THE CHURCH!

Scripture says that there are some that "want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm" (1Timothy 1:7) AND that there are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability (2Peter 2:16-17). So there are some who want to be teachers of the law that twist scripture and then there are others who KNOW what they are talking about and don't twist scripture? If you know what you are talking about and you are not twisting scripture wouldn't that make you infallible?

God wants you to know the truth......unaltered, undiminished, undefiled by the treatment of fallible human reason. Since the Apostles are deceased how could that be accomplished? The answer is: Thru His Church!! He has made it that channel by which his truth passes to men. Scripture made it clear that Christ meant it to be so. He sent his Holy Spirit to guide the Church to witness to the truth as he did.

 

[epostle1]

Are you asking for scripture about the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth that was built on a rock. Are you asking about the infallibility that was given to the Church and if you won't accept the church's teaching then you are to be treated as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector. (1Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:18, Matthew 18:17)

The Church leaders that were told to "stay in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer" (1Timothy 1:3). How can one command another not to teach false doctrines unless they have the TRUE doctrine? If they have the TRUE doctrine are they not infallible?

How can The Church not be infallible when scripture tells us that we should all agree so that there be no divisions among us and that we be united in the same mind and the same judgment? If we are all united in the same mind and judgments on the interpretation of scripture wouldn't that make The Church infallible? (1Corinthians 1:10) Which takes us back to Matthew 18:17....if you don't agree with the Church you are to be treated as a pagan or tax collector. It doesn't say if you don't agree with bible you are to be treated a certain way. It says if you don't agree with THE CHURCH!

Scripture says that there are some that "want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm" (1Timothy 1:7) AND that there are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability (2Peter 2:16-17). So there are some who want to be teachers of the law that twist scripture and then there are others who KNOW what they are talking about and don't twist scripture? If you know what you are talking about and you are not twisting scripture wouldn't that make you infallible?

God wants you to know the truth......unaltered, undiminished, undefiled by the treatment of fallible human reason. Since the Apostles are deceased how could that be accomplished? The answer is: Thru His Church!! He has made it that channel by which his truth passes to men. Scripture made it clear that Christ meant it to be so. He sent his Holy Spirit to guide the Church to witness to the truth as he did.

 

[epostle1]

Allow me to explain how the bible was proven to be inspired in the 3rd-4th centuries, not the 15TH OR THE 21st., using the facts of history. There is a summary below.

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels.

We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries,

We then take that and together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (with a sophisticated special effects crew)

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility.
Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that a Church exists, namely, the Catholic Church, which is divinely protected against teaching doctrinal error. Now we are at the last premise of the argument.

This Catholic Church tells us the
(2)Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the
(1)Church is infallible.

Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—
(1)that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—
(2)that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

This SUMMARY of a summary should clarify:
1) On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
2) From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
3) And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.
4) This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable),
5) and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).
What I have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.
Note: infallibility is not the same as inspiration, nobody is saying infallibility is greater than the Bible.

 

[mjrhealth]

You are preaching that Jesus builds junk, and that He LIED about His promised protection. BAD BEHAVIOR has NOTHING TO DO WITH INFALLIBLE TEACHING AND bad leaders never taught anything anyway.

No man builds junk than blames it all on God. The pride of man how it does such a disservice to our God and saviour. As for hating her you should.