Infallibility?

Ahh...a greater good theodicy.

Bless You,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]So are you in agreement or disagreement? Hard to tell. God bless,

Grant

 

Where does the Church say that it is without error as you are saying it?

 

I am afraid I would have to fall in the disagreement category, at least to an extent. It was hard to tell, wasn't it?

In Christ,
Neal

 

I am afraid I would have to fall in the disagreement category, at least to an extent. It was hard to tell, wasn't it?

In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]So satan manipulated men such that they crucified Jesus but that wasn't a greater good because it provided for our salvation? Was there something wrong with God's plan that thwarted Satans'?

 

Please show me where I say that or even imply it.

God Bless You,
Neal

 

Neal,

Could you elaborate on what you believe in regards to theodacy? Thanks!

God bless,

Grant

 

I'll start another thread, Grant. Don't want to add to the confusion here.

God Bless,
Neal

 

Please show me where I say that or even imply it.

God Bless You,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Grant asked you if you agree or disagreed with my words that you quoted. You said, I believe that you disagreed. Perhaps in all the confusion I misunderstood you.

 

Yes, we can attribute this to confusion. I quoted Grant and when I said I disagreed it was with what he said, namely referring to a greater good theodicy. That's all.

In Christ Jesus,
Neal

 

Right, thats your fig leaf of plausible deniability. </font>[/QUOTE]Then prove me wrong, or retract your false allegations and slander.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]No proof. No retraction. Only false allegations.
DHK

 

Prove you wrong about what?

What false allegation?

BTW, I'm leaving today for a short vacation (sailing nothern Lake Michigan)so this will probably have to go on hold until I return in a week or so.

 

Paul's words that were recorded in the scripture are infallible, and we are not taking "Paul's words for it." He proved his words according to the OT scriptures and God confirmed His words with signs and wonders. I have mentioned this already in one of the two threads, but I supposed you missed it.

We know the Bereans did not simply take Paul's word for what he was saying, they checked the scripturals daily to see if what he was teaching was true. This is never explained to be the wrong thing to do. NEVER does the Bible teach that we must believe the the apostles teachings based upon man's testimony alone.

Paul had proof. Paul reasoned from the scriptures he NEVER declared infallibilty without proof. He NEVER declared that only the apostles had the power to explain the scriptures. Remember what I sated before, Jesus and the apostles not only allowed us to know the scriptures, they expected us to already have knowledge of it. This is why they often used the argument "Have you not read in the scriptures?"

Paul made this statement to the Galatians:

According to the catholic church, that is all he needed to say. It was from God and they should obey it, end of story. But Paul did not. He goes on to give his testimony about how his life was changed and after that how all the other apostles were also living freely, outside of the law, just as he had been. How, when Peter (not infallible in THIS doctrine) was forcing gentiles to live by Jewish customs that Peter himself did not live by, Paul opposed him to his face and corrected this teaching. Paul uses the scriptures to prove his point 3 times in chapter 3 and once in chapter 4.

The entire book of Galatians is Paul proving that what he was saying was true.

So we do have "proof" that the words Paul wrote were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that proof is not just that "he told us so." I do not need to prove him infallibile in all areas of life, because he never taught us anything that wasn't provable in the scripture and that wasn't confirmed by God's signs and wonders.

The only proof you have that the pope is infallible is because the laws of the church that the pope is in charge of tells us so. You have no other proof. You can not prove it in scripture and God has not confirmed it with signs and wonders. So, to make your claim the only other proof left would be to prove infallibilty in all areas of life, which we know is not the case. You have no proof left, you have failed all three tests. The catholic church is simply wrong.

~Lorelei

 

"Paul's words that were recorded in the scripture are infallible, and we are not taking "Paul's words for it." He proved his words according to the OT scriptures and God confirmed His words with signs and wonders. I have mentioned this already in one of the two threads, but I supposed you missed it. "

Nope, didn't miss it. And I am trying to take a baby step with you. You seem to think from above that I have presented all my arguements about infallibility. I am just trying to get you to come clean and show that one statement you made is false. And I agree completely with what you have said about Paul's stuff being confirmed by God but it is quite clearly in conflict with the statement below that you also made:

"If a man can NOT prove infalliblity in one area of life, there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to believe he is infallible in another. "


Thus the point of the verse I keep quoting is that it is in fact possible for a man to be fallible in one part of his life but infallible in another. That is what you will not acknowledge. You may say "the pope is not infallible" and if you are right in the end then so be it. But this does not make any other statement you want to make against papal infallibility true. Especially if you contradict what has God shown is possible. In the case of Paul, speaking and writing the word of God, he was infallible, yet he sinned, ie. was fallible. Now if you are going to convince me that the Pope cannot be infallible in faith and morals because your above statement is correct, then you are going to have to do a much better job of it than you have to date because it is clear to all that your statement is false. A man can be fallible in one part of his life and infallible in another. If it has ever happened (and it did many times) it is possible. You are simply wrong. If we could get past this one issue and get you to admit that a statement you made is fallible and in fact wrong I will gladly move on to the rest of your arguements. Until then there is little point in adressing anything you have to say.

Blessing though

 

The only time anyone wrote without error was
when the Holy Spirit was dictating and editing
both the OLD and NEW Testaments.

Christians know that the canon of Scripture is
COMPLETE. The Apostles of Jesus were never
perfect. Since the only time they wrote
perfectly was when they were composing what
would be later scripture and since the Bible is complete---there is no way anyone living today
that is capable of what the pope has been
espoused.

Let's face it, the "present" pope even questions
the very foundation of truth upon which the New
Testament rests.

 

A_Christian,

Thumbs up or down on Lorelei's statement that a man cannot be infallible in one part of his life if he is fallible in others. That is all that my post is attempting to deal with. Then I will be glad to deal with your post above.

Blessings,

By the way, it never ceases to amaze me how many red herrings, straw men, and false dichotomies you guys can stuff in to a few short paragraphs.

 

Well, taking any person's words out of context can make a man (or woman as the case may be) sound guilty. But let us put this statement back in it's original context, shall we?

This statement was made from the fact that they had already failed the test of having it proven scripturally. I had already stated before that "Those of us not willing to take their word for it have no other means of testing that doctrine as the Bereans tested Pauls. "

In my very first post in this thread I was already showing how the catholic church had failed the other test of confirmation in scripture.

I clarified this again and again.

So, with the understanding (assuming those who were responding had actually read all the context of all my posts) I made this statement.

I then immediately clarified that there is no other reason because it was already shown that the Bible did not teach this to be true. The only proof left that you had to offer was total infallibilty, and you failed that test as well.

In order for you to make this argument you had to take my words out of context and misrepresent my entire argument.

For one last clarification let me reiterate. The catholic church can not prove papal infallibility in the scripture because the scripture does not teach it. The catholic church has not had their "infallible" pope confirm their doctrine with signs and wonders (that had been prophesied in scripture) as the apostles did. The catholic church can not prove infallability outside of scripture by showing that the pope is infallibile in all aspects of his life. Therefore, the catholic church can not prove the pope to be infallible.

~Lorelei

 

An ironic thought. I find it amazing that Lorelei keeps telling me that we must apply the berean principle to every statement that a man makes to see if it is in conformance with scripture. When I do that with regard to her statement that a man cannot be fallible in one facet of his life and infallible in another, she seems to get kinda bent out of shape. Odd.

 

Well thessalonian,

You statement only proves that the pope could
NEVER be infallible. The very fact that he is getting old and feeble is proof enough of his
sin nature. The pope is TOTALLY in error about
the Flood and Noah. He does have an interesting
taste in wardrobe. Far too RICH for my tastes.

 

"You statement only proves that the pope could
NEVER be infallible."

My statement? No, it is not mine. I am mearly trying to see if any of you can evaluate it using the Berean principle.

My question is is the statement true of false. If it is true then it does prove that the Pope cannot be infallible. If it is false it does not it proves nothing on either side of the infallibility equation. Seems to me that Paul was fallible since he says himself that he does EVIL. Yet in other facets of his life we in fact agree that he was infallible, i.e. writing scripture. This is ample proof that the statement is false to me. We could certainly prove that any other of the infallible writers and speakers of the Word of God were siners and thus fallible in part of their lives, forcing a false tag to the alleged statement. Do you agree or do you not? Seems obvious.

Old and feeble proves the Pope is not infallible with regard to Faith and Morals? Scripture writers didn't get old and feeble?

Blessings

 

"The catholic church can not prove infallability outside of scripture by showing that the pope is infallibile in all aspects of his life. "

We agree that infallibility in faith and morals has to be in concert with scripture. We believe it is but none of this thread has been about that.
We do not need to show that he is infallible in all aspects of his life for the fourtieth time. That is a MOOT POINT!!! Scripture does not require it of a man. Once again your whole post clarifies nothing because scriptures prove that a man does not have to be infallible in all aspects of his life (as I have clearly shown) to be infallible in faith and morals. MOOT POINT! It is a completely MOOT ARGUEMENT that you are using and I have not used scripture in this thread to prove infallibility. The context of this thread is that Popes sin and make mistakes so they are not infallible. Yet scripture clearly shows men sinning and making mistakes and yet making infallible statements so you statement is undeniably false as is the one I just quoted by you. I have not misrepresented the context. You merely fail to see that your statements need to be applied to the Berean principle as well.

If by some chance the writers of scripture had never sinned then the words would have been no more infallible than they already are.


Blessings