RELIGION....(part 2)

[mannyamador]

---

Buddhism is nondogmatic.

If Buddhism makes ANY kind of positive claim whatsoever, then it IS dogmatic.

Also, if you affirm all claims, then you really affirm nothing. Does Buddhism affirm nothing?

[shoeless_rebel]

NO RELIGION IS PERFECT BUT NOT HAVING ONE IS AN ASSURED FAILING MARK IF INCASE THERE IS A GOD

bro, i don't have a religion... but i think im a far better person to my neighbors and to myself and far less a "sinner" if we base it on ur 10 commandments compared to alot of devote christians, muslim or whatever. u say that it's a failing mark not to have a religion if incase there is a god... does that mean that i'm going to hell if incase there is really a god?

get my point? do really need a religion to be saved?

[d_guy1024]

Buddhism is nondogmatic.

If Buddhism makes ANY kind of positive claim whatsoever, then it IS dogmatic.

Also, if you affirm all claims, then you really affirm nothing. Does Buddhism affirm nothing?

What I understand of dogmatic is that it is characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. See Synonyms at dictatorial.

But if you mean something else...we're not parallel then...=)

[lightbringer]

I think it's been refuted ages ago but still you FAILED to accept it. :idiot2

You're not thinking, as usual. But I'll indulge your mindlessness. Kindly state the refutation. Don't chicken out on this one, OK?Â*

Another one of those so called "stupid" statements.Â* Read two posts backward maybe that would enlighten you one way or another.. or not... then you're forever ignorant.

Aw, too scared to state the proof? Can't supply the verses? That's a pretty lame argument you have there.

Should I be discussing the whole context on the Authority of the Bible here? I think this is settled before you were born man!Â* Since your were still an infant, this whole issue is settled.

It was settled in the early Church Couciles, way before your bastardized KJV. Oh, maybe you're referring to the Jewsih rabbinical council at Javneh? Poor boy. Javneh didn't settle the Old testment canon for Christians. It attempted to settle it for orthodox Jews and was specificlally called to counter the growth of Christianity. Now you're not saying an anti-Christian rabbinical council can define the Old Testament canon for CHRISTIANS, are you?

And yet, it was the canon of Javneh that the bastardized KJV used, as per Martin Luther's influence (Luther used the council of Javenh to justify his canon).

By the way, you seem to have forgotten that Paul was a murderer and oppressor of Christians, and yet God used him. So the silly argument about Peter denying the Lord three times really doesn't hold any water. And the earthly head of the Church is NOT infallible when it comes to his personal opinion, which is exactly what Paul rebuked. Peter NEVER made a doctrinal statement about that. You don't even seem to undertsand what the concept of the papacy is all about, and yet you make all these ignorant statements about it. There's a word for that. Its called PREJUDICE.

So... where oh where is that verse I asked for? PROVIDE me with even one verse explicitly stating that the Bible is the SOLE/FINAL AUTHORITY. Surely you can find it, can't you? You haven't misplaced it, have you? Has the fanatical froth from your mouth covered it up?

Sorry bubba, but bluster and fanatical pronouncements do not make for rational arguments.Â*

Horselaugh!

Well you have never read the posts before.Â* Poor soul. You are endanger in hellfire.Â* Whether you like it or not the Bible is still and will be the Sole and Final Authority..

just a recap for y'all...

There is a common and predictable objection to our position summarized thusly: "It is nowhere written that God inspired the King James Version." No, it is indeed nowhere written so, and for some that settles the argument once and forever; however, I'll ask you this: Did God promise you and me His infallible word? You may well disagree with me, but I still read my Bible, and the answer to that question is a resounding YES! Once that question is settled by faith, and you begin with an honest search, the road to the AV 1611 is short and sure. Most of your problem is that the original question set forth is never SETTLED. Why? Lack of Faith. Can't take God at His word.

No, sir, you do not have an intellectual problem. You have a heart problem. I know it's a heart problem because you'll believe somebody that wrote a book before you'll sit down for three hours and compare the profound variances between the KJV and the new Corruptions. Furthermore, for those of you who have seen some of those differences and then shrugged your unyoked and frail little intellectual shoulders, you are a case in point.

And about papacy... It's another kind of horse. A pale horse! I can't understand papacy because it's nowhere in the bible!
Or maybe it's in the Catholic Bible.. which is not really a Bible.Â*

John 1:42 doesn't just sit there...

And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Further, most any dimwit can figure out that personal opinion makes for a sorry final authority. The Charismatics and New Agers need learn the fundamental lesson that feelings and experience make for a deceptive taskmaster. The Moralists must acknowledge the treachery of conscience in that conscience can be both "seared" and "defiled." Mostly though, of all people, it is God's people who need to (in shame) relearn the first principles of final authority. FINAL AUTHORITY cannot be some mythological, untouchable, esoteric, theoretical, fog enshrouded set of writings; writings encased in mystery and currently committed to oblivion, extinct yet nonetheless hailed and exalted as holy. No, if what you have in your lap during Bible reading isn't perfect and entire, you are left adrift clinging to the wreckage of FINAL AUTHORITY, yet unavoidably adrift!

You know, it's a good thing you didn't demand as much proof for Christ's death, burial and resurrection before you believed the Gospel as you require before believing the words of God. Sizzle city, friend.

[lightbringer]

bro, i don't have a religion... but i think im a far better person to my neighbors and to myself and far less a "sinner" if we base it on ur 10 commandments compared to alot of devote christians, muslim or whatever. u say that it's a failing mark not to have a religion if incase there is a god... does that mean that i'm going to hell if incase there is really a god?

get my point? do really need a religion to be saved?

"In case there is a God?" You surroundings could prove to you that there is a God. You don't need a religion to be saved. You need more than a religion. You need a relationship with God.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 14:6
I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

A gift, you don't have to work for it. It is done, it is finished.

[soulshocked]

Revived at the revival conference! :mrgreen:
@lightbringer
Preach!

National Sword Conference, 2006 July 24-28, Walkertown, North Carolina
Word Youth Congress, 2006 April 3-6 Bible Baptist Church, Katipunanl St., Cebu City
Evangelist Mike Wells will be preaching bruh!Â* That means back to the old time blazing, fiery preaching!Â*
"Calling A Spade, A Spade"

Religion...religion...a never ending debate of this friggin' stuff...well, i don't believe it can save us...salvation my ASS...

hahahahaha... nice one empress. religion is not our salvation. i can't believe how many fanatics and zealots we have in istorya...dugay na ning lalisa an di bet mag dugay pa ni... long after we're dust.

Â*

When you say you don't make any profession, it means you despise God and God's law.
You think it's a strange thing for a man to make no profession of being a gentleman, or being honest, sober, chaste..Â*
And you that have no Christ in your hearts just make your trial easier.
When the scales of justice be lifted up, you will be found lightweight.

My Lord, I made no profession.Â* What?Â* Saith the King.Â* Did this man made no profession of obedience?
O Lord, I made no profession.Â* What?Â* Saith the Creator.Â* Make no profession of acknowledging my rights?
I made no profession of Christ.Â* What?Â* Saith the JudgeÂ* Did I send my Son to the world to die?Â* And did this man did no profession of casting his soul upon Him?Â* What?Â* Did he not see his needed mercy?Â* Then he shall have none.Â* Does he dare to tell me to my face that he never made any profession of faith in Christ? And never had to do anything with the savior?Â* Insomuch as he despised My Son, despised His cross and rejected His salvation let him die the death.
Everlasting wailing and gnashing of teeth.Â* Eternity alone can tell.

Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

And the earthly head of the Church is NOT infallible when it comes to his personal opinion, which is exactly what Paul rebuked. Peter NEVER made a doctrinal statement about that. You don't even seem to undertsand what the concept of the papacy is all about, and yet you make all these ignorant statements about it. There's a word for that. Its called PREJUDICE.

Oh? What about the declaration of Papal Infallability declared in 1870 AD.

The apostles never regarded any man to be infallible, only the Word of God is regarded as without error.Â* If Peter was the pope, which the Bible says he was not (only people who misunderstood the Bible with their puny brains), then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers.Â* Unless you tell me that this declaration of "Papal Infallability" is not valid nowadays and it's changed.Â* Then this would conclude that you have a very shacky doctrine.Â* Based on useless and foolish traditions of men.Â* Phew!

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

It was settled in the early Church Couciles, way before your bastardized KJV. Oh, maybe you're referring to the Jewsih rabbinical council at Javneh? Poor boy. Javneh didn't settle the Old testment canon for Christians. It attempted to settle it for orthodox Jews and was specificlally called to counter the growth of Christianity. Now you're not saying an anti-Christian rabbinical council can define the Old Testament canon for CHRISTIANS, are you?

And yet, it was the canon of Javneh that the bastardized KJV used, as per Martin Luther's influence (Luther used the council of Javenh to justify his canon).

You're way off dude! Way off! Maybe some illustrations would somehow enlighten your puny brain.Â* This is not a bible study by the way...

[img width=312 height=500]http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/images/daniels_RCC_01.jpg[/img][img width=312 height=500]http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/images/daniels_RCC_02.jpg[/img][img width=314 height=500]http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/images/daniels_RCC_03.jpg[/img][img width=317 height=500]http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/images/daniels_RCC_04.jpg[/img][img width=317 height=500]http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/images/daniels_RCC_05.jpg[/img][img width=316 height=500]http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/images/daniels_RCC_06.jpg[/img][img width=311 height=500]http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/images/daniels_RCC_07.jpg[/img][img width=308 height=500]http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/images/daniels_RCC_08.jpg[/img][img width=316 height=500]http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/images/daniels_RCC_09.jpg[/img][img width=304 height=500]http://www.biblebelievers.com/bookshop/images/daniels_RCC_10.jpg[/img]


And here are some verses you need to ponder on...again for your puny brain.

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mark 13:31
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 21:33
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Thress times eh.. in 3 different books and 3 different authors.Â* Probabaly your eyes are still rolling up and down and still can't comprehend what it is.Â* Here's more...

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

All scripture...means all.Â* Profitable for doctrine! Reproof! Correction! Instruction!Â* Still can't understand eh?

Revelation 22:18,19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Aw! Still not clear bud?

Proverbs 30:5,6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.Â* Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Still not getting anything eh?

Psalm 119:89
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psalm 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Hello?Â* Or are you looking for an exact phrase that says "The KJV or the Bible is the sole authority" or something like that eh?

John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Aw!Â* It says the scripture cannot be broken..and you boy are trying to break it.Â* Replace it with traditions of men and vain deceit!

2 Timothy 2:9
The Word of God is not bound.

You're probably searching now on other resources like other Catholic sites to counter these verses.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

It ways the Word of God and nothing else!

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Still not getting any eh?Â* It is because...

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."Â* Isaiah 8:20

Here are some false doctrines the Roman Catholic Church teaches that are contrary to the Bible, and were unknown to the early Church.Â* If you're a reader and truly honest in searching for the truth, the first thing you'd do is to search the scripture and prove all things!Â*

1.Â* Human tradition is Elevated to or Above the Word of God 1545AD
2.Â* Wrong Gospel, Wrong Message of Salvation
3.Â* Confession of Sins to Priest to Obtain Absolution of Sins.
4.Â* Penance
5.Â* Priests
6.Â* Celebacy of Priests and Nuns 1079AD
7.Â* Confirmation
8.Â* Extreme Unction
9.Â* Infant Baptism 370AD (Baptism means "immersion" not sprinkling.Â* It should be called infant sprinkling or showering)
10. TransubstantiationÂ* 1215AD
11. Adoration of the Host (wafer bread) 1220AD
12. The Mass 394AD
13. Other Mediators Between God and man.
14. Prayer to Saints. 375AD
15. Purgatory 593AD
16. Papal Infallability 1870AD
17. Indulgences 1190AD
18. Idolatry 786 AD
19. Mary Veneration 431AD
20. Catholic attitudes to the Bible 1229AD
21. Peter as the Rock.Â*
22. 15 Apocrypha Books added to the Old testament Bible. 1546AD
23. Names of Blasphemy. 350AD
24. Rosary Prayer Beeds. 1090AD.
25. Low Moral Standards.
26. Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary.
27. Crossing oneself. 300AD
28. Was Peter the First Pope?
29. Roman Catholic lies, Immorality, Corruption.
30. The Inquisition, Torture, Massacres, Murders, Wars.Â* 1184AD. (Surely these are not the fruits of the Spirit!)
31. 15 Evidences that the Roman Catholic is Mystery Babylon the Great, the Whore of Revelation 17.
32. Who gave us the Bible? God or the Roman Catholic Church?
33. They turn people away from Christ to honour twelve other things.

Till then..."let God be true, but every man a liar..."Â* Good day!







Â*

[mannyamador]

Poor soul. You are endanger in hellfire.

Oh so now you think have the authority to detemrine that too? Such arrogant fanaticism!

Whether you like it or not the Bible is still and will be the Sole and Final Authority.

Even if the Bible itself DOES NOT SAY SO? Am I supposed to take your fanatical word for it? Please spare us the idiocy.

I'll ask you this: Did God promise you and me His infallible word? You may well disagree with me, but I still read my Bible, and the answer to that question is a resounding YES! Once that question is settled by faith, and you begin with an honest search, the road to the AV 1611 is short and sure. Most of your problem is that the original question set forth is never SETTLED. Why? Lack of Faith. Can't take God at His word.

Uh... where? And once you cite that verse, please tell me exactly what that Word is supposed to be? No KJV there, bubba. In nfact, no specific collection of books (a Bible) is mentioned at all! Your plentiful words DO NOT CITE ANY PROOF from the Bible. You claim there's proof? Where? Just claiming there's proof is NOT proof. You have to show the evidence. AND YOU HAVEN'T. So, when will you cite the exact verses? Maybe NEVER? I thought so.

You seem to have more than a heart problem. You have an arrogance problem.

Or maybe it's in the Catholic Bible.. which is not really a Bible.

Another idiotic and UNFOUNDED claim. You haven't been able to prove that YOUR bastard bible is the real thing.

Further, most any dimwit can figure out that personal opinion makes for a sorry final authority.

And that us why your claims miserably fail. You cannot cite any proof, not from the Bible or from anywhere else. All your plentifull verbiage consists of claims that there is proof, but you conveniently fail to cite the actual proof.

No, if what you have in your lap during Bible reading isn't perfect and entire, you are left adrift clinging to the wreckage of FINAL AUTHORITY, yet unavoidably adrift!

Wrong again. This is a ligcal error known as the "excluded middle". You are assuming that Christ did not institute any other authority. But even your Bible doesn't teach that. Neither does it teach that the Bible is the FINAL authority. But it DOES teach that He established the Church as the authority.

Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):

assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For
example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or
being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot.

So, when will you really prove your silly claims? I think we've waited long enough and waded through your fanaticqll but profoundly empty verbiage. Cite some proof. Where oh where is that verse? If you can't, then the line quoted elsewhere applies very much to you:

"let God be true, but every man a liar..." <--- You really should take heed of this! It can apply especially to those who refuse to cite proof.

[Sovabon]

Good deeds soulshocked! People are unaware of the false teachings/doctrines.

[mannyamador]

Oh? What about the declaration of Papal Infallability declared in 1870 AD.

So tell me what you REALLY know about that declaration? Post the declaration, and while you're at it, you can also look it up in the Catechism. It's pretty obvious you don't even understand the concept of papal infallibility. And you think you can tell Catholics that YOUR interpetation of the concept is AUTHORITATIVE? Don't give us that garbage.

When you attack a doctrine you haven't even begun to understand, you are simply PREJUDICED. Sinfully so!

If Peter was the pope, which the Bible says he was not

One more unfounded claim? OK, cite the verse that explicitly says Peter was NOT pope. You CAN'T, right? I thought so.

You're way off dude! Way off! Maybe some illustrations would somehow enlighten your puny brain. This is not a bible study by the way...

Some silly cartoons prove nothing, in case you were dumb enough to think they do. They are mere claims, but have no historical, documentary evidence. Cite the actual ancient document or historicall studies and maybe you can show that you have some capacity to think. But until then, such stupidity really doesn't cut it.

Now let's look at some of the verses you cited. These illustrate quite clearly how you are MISINTERPRETING and TWISTING them to "say" what tyou want them to say, with total disregard for what they actually DO say!

All scripture...means all. Profitable for doctrine! Reproof! Correction! Instruction! Still can't understand eh?

You seem to have trouble understanding simple English. "All" does not mean "ONLY". Maybe you can't comprehend that, but most of us here can. All the verse shows is that scripture is profitable for the things cited in the verse. But it does not say scripture is the ONLY thing useful for such. That is just your mindless interpretation.

Try reading it again. S-L-O-W-L-Y so as not to overwhelm your brain.

Revelation 22:18,19

So where does it say there that it applies to the entire Bible? When that document was written, the Bible was not yet even complete. All it proves is that one cannot add or subtract to the Book of Revelation (or Apocalypse). But it says nothing about the entire Bible, nor does it rule out any other authority. You are again MISINTERPRETING the verses. As usual.

And the same for the rest of the verses. Twisting scripture to suit your personal fanatical doctrines.

Come on now, bubba. surely you can find even one teeny weeny little verse that actually teaches what you claim? All you've given is your idiotic PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS. But the verses simply don't say what you claim they say.

There's a word for what you do. It's called LYING.

So very "christian" of you, eh?

[mannyamador]

Papal Infallibility
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:1.

Vatican II’s Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

Based on Christ’s Mandate

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

Some Clarifications

An infallible pronouncement -- whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council -- usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

Peter Not Infallible?

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.

Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).

Their "Favorite Case"

According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."

Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.

The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.

This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.

One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.

All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).