Posted on 04/28/2015 8:36:56 AM PDT by RnMomof7
It’s a question that requires little thought to answer; are you infallible? It ranks right up there with, “Are you God?” But to Catholic apologists the question is quite serious; that’s because they believe that there is a man on earth who, on the subject of faith and morals, is infallible; they call him, “holy father.” See, it does rank right up there with, “Are you God,” at least when coming from people who think their leader is equal with God on deciding issues of faith and morals.
According to Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, this question should cause Protestants to suddenly doubt everything they believe, and Catholics should take comfort in knowing they and only they, have an infallible leader here on earth. But how can they know? Is there one Catholic person out there, besides the pope of course, who will confess to being infallible? And if a Catholic is not infallible, how can he or she “know” their pope is infallible? They can’t! So if they cannot infallibly declare their pope to be infallible, then their assertion is nothing more than a fallible opinion. And if they are wrong, which my fallible counter-assertion says they are, then they are being deceived.
The logic that so often accompanies claims of papal infallibility goes something like this: “Jesus did not leave His people vulnerable to the doctrinal whims of competing leaders.”
The logic used is quite revealing; it indicates very strongly that those who use it have no idea what it means to have the gift of the Holy Spirit, because if they had the gift of the Holy Spirit they would not be looking to Rome for infallible direction. It also reveals that they think everyone else is like them, wanting to follow the whims of their leaders. It also denies the notion that Christ has relationship with man through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Their magisterium reserves that privilege for themselves and people buy into it. It’s no different than Mormons following their prophet in Utah.
The pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, but the Apostle Paul explicitly said that Christ is the head of His Church and He reconciles all things to Himself. To wit, Catholics will be quick to agree that Christ is the head, but then immediately contradict themselves by saying, “but He established the papacy through which He reveals His truths .” Based on what? If Christ is the head and we are the body, where does the papacy fit in? I see no evidence of this claim in Scripture or history, so if the evidence is not there the papacy must belong to a different body; one that is not associated with Christ and His church.
In his newsletter on his website where he shares chapter one of his new book, “Blue Collar Apologetics,” John Martignoni instructs his faithful followers to establish the fact that Protestants are not infallible early on in discussions with them. The purpose of doing this is to attempt to convince the Protestant that he could be wrong about what he believes. The funny thing is Martignoni never tells his readers what to do if the Protestant turns the question back on them; and that is most certainly what is likely to happen.
Does Martignoni really not see this coming, or is he simply at a loss for how to address it? Once a Catholic apologist is faced with admitting their own fallibility, they will immediately be forced to deal with the realization that their claim of papal infallibility is itself a fallible opinion; so they must, therefore, admit that they could be wrong as well. And once they realize the playing field is level, the evidence will do the talking.
A Catholic apologist who is willing to concede that his belief regarding papal infallibility is nothing more than a fallible opinion will likely ask another similar question, “What church do you belong to and how old is it?” In their minds this is the true “gotcha” question. They believe, in their fallible opinions of course, that they belong to the church founded by Christ nearly 2000 years ago. But the fact is, and yes it is a fact, there was no Roman Catholic Church 2000 years ago; it took a few hundred years for that to develop. Furthermore, by their own admission, the doctrines they hold equal in authority to the Bible, which they call “sacred traditions,” did not exist at the time of the apostles; that also is a fact.
There is something, however, that is clearly older than any Protestant or Roman Catholic Church and that is the written books of the Bible. If a person bases his or her faith on these written works then no supposed authority that came later can undermine the power of God working through them. It is unfortunate that when a person comes to Christ in faith through reading the Bible, that there are so-called Christians who come along to cast doubt in their minds. For example, in a tract on the Catholic Answers website called, “By What Authority,” it is stated, “In fact, not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers.”
Not according to the Apostle John who explicitly wrote, “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name”? He did not say these are written because you believe; he said, these are written that you may believe. John’s gospel is a firsthand written testimony of the ministry of Jesus for the purpose of bringing people to Him, and Catholic apologists are telling us it was never John’s intention for us to become believers by reading it? Amazing; isn’t it? The Catholic Answers philosophy seems to be to make up facts rather than face them.
So for the sake of the next John Martignoni disciple who wants to ask me if I am infallible, the answer is no; and incidentally your answer to my identical question is also no. Thus I am not interested in your fallible opinion that your pope is infallible when speaking on faith and morals. Perhaps one of you can go tell Mr. Martignoni that chapter his one is incomplete, and that he might want to consider adding a realistic response to his question rather than a bunch of scenarios where the Protestant is simply dumbfounded. His current scenarios might have been fun for him to write, but they are only going to embarrass his readers when they go out armed with the Martignoni sword.
So you agree that it’s faith alone but that true faith produces fruit! Excellent!
Glory to God who works such conversions. An effect which has a cause, which cannot be reasonably attributed to merely naturalistic causes, esp. when such have been replicated time and time again.
I have challenged atheists to go to a strong evangelical church and ask for some solid Christians to interview, Find out what their lives were before and after conversion, and how it corresponded to what they believed. Changes in heart and life which correspond to claims of Christ and are contingent upon faith in them, and blessing obtained by obedience to Him.
Not all are that Years ago a couple “soul winners” in the Baptist church i was part of about 20 miles north of here were going house to house and witnessed to man, Kirt, who was quite open to talking about the Bible and Christ, unlike most in this RC area. But then again, he was from the Caribbean.
His GF did not want them around however, and so the left him with a gospel tract. And prayed for him. Well, two things happened to awake him to his need for Christ: His GF left him and his father died, and he was quite depressed and suicidal.
Before before he did something terminal, in his desperation Kirt walked to the Catholic church close by to see the priest. However, they were playing Bingo in the church and the words of Christ about turning His house into a place of commerce came to his mind, as in his country they read the Bible in public schools.
Then he thought, “Maybe there is an address on the paper the two guys who talked to me about my soul left with me.” And sure enough there was, and so he walked the two miles to the church, which was open, and knocked on an office door where a man was sitting. Asleep.
It was the assistant pastor, who had converted to Christ, coming from an Episcopal church. He was searching for Christ as a Episcopalian found the Bible preaching in a Baptist church alive and became born again. Then he sensed God’s call to the ministry, and asked the Lord that God if it really was from Him that someone would offer to buy his house even if he did not advertize it was for sale. And indeed a man showed up at his door one day and said he wanted to buy his house and he went into ministry in his 50’s, and was mostly paid from voluntary donations.
The pastor had to be at the church very early due to the Christian school there, so we can sympathize with him napping a bit at his age, only to be awakened by Kirt knocking on the door.
He opened it up and asked if he could help him and Kiry says “Yes, i need to be saved.” Well, do you know that you are a sinner?” Yes, I know that I am a sinner and I need to be saved!” So (i am smiling) while we were out going house to house and facing closed doors and hearts, this napping pastor has a man waking him desperately wanting to be saved!
And as “The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit,” (Psalms 34:18) it was not hard for this man to find Christ and be born again. And as this was a real conversion and this was a Wednesday, that night Kirt came wanting to be baptized, and was, and took the Lord’s supper.
And as he confessed he was hear illegally, we worked to get him back to his Island, while in the interim we worked at the church as a real help to the ministry.
Such a conversion could have occurred at many other evangelical churches, and it is due to such regeneration with its profound changes in heart and life that such converts share a essential unity of the Spirit which transcends their tribal identifications, as they all were saved by the same Christ, and it is their shared relationship with Him that is central.
This is often realized even spontaneously in meeting other believers, but is not realized with mere religionists. I used to often meet disciples of a Church of Christ cult, very zealous, but it was their church one must be in, and likewise that is the security and gospel which most Caths preach out of the abundance of their hearts.
However, the evangelical fellowship in Christ, which actually pertains to a relative remnant, does not minimize the importance of related doctrines, and contentions due to love for the Truth, but if it driven for love for the Truth and the Christ of the Truth, then they share a unique and critical unity that is greater than their differences.
Spurgeon: Although upon doctrines of grace our views differ from those avowed by Arminian Methodists, we have usually found that on the great evangelical truths we are in full agreement, and we have been comforted by the belief that Wesleyans were solid upon the central doctrines. (Sword and the Trowel, May, 1891)
Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. (C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Vol. 1, p. 173, in “A Defence Of Calvinism,” The Banner Of Truth Trust edition)
Now I hate High Churchism as my soul hates Satan; but I love George Herbert, although George Herbert is a desperately High Churchman. I hate his high Churchism, but I love George Herbert from my very soul, and I have a warm corner in my heart for every man who is like him. Let me find a man who loves my Lord Jesus Christ as George Herbert did, and I do not ask myself whether I shall love him or not; there is no room for question, for I cannot help myself; unless I can leave off loving Jesus Christ, I cannot cease loving those who love him. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 12, p. 6; http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs668.pdf)
Benjamin Franklin: And the Divine Being seems to have manifested His approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness by which the different sects treat each other, and by the remarkable prosperity with which He has been please to favor the whole country. (Benjamin Franklin, “Information to those who would Remove to America,” John Gould Curtis, American history told by contemporaries .... Volume 3, p. 26; http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/quotes_compare.html)
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805—1859. French political thinker and historian; best known for his two volume, “Democracy in America”) — The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same...
In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth... (Democracy in America, Volume I Chapter XVII, 1835; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)
I have Yehova’s word; your modifications thereto are from your daddy, Lucifer.
Editor,
you and I won’t agree,.
You begin your day at night.
I begin my day at light.
Rome is with you on that.
if I am going to see someone at 9 PM tonight, I can use the word tonight.
You have to use the word tomorrow if you are consistent
You have to discount the fact that Elohim called the ‘Light’ Day before He called the ‘dark’ Night,
I am okay with starting with His 12 hours in His Day and not the 3 (at least) watches of the Night.
He gave the greater light to rule the ‘day’ and the ‘lesser’ light to rule the ‘night’.
40 days seemed to be followed with 40 nights at least a few times in scripture.
I guess a study could be done how many times day is stated before night and vice versa and maybe that would be n interesting study and the one who has the most ‘wins’?
Yeah, it won’t determine salvation but does determine what gospel one believes,. And I suspect you and I differ on that too..
I know what Leviticus 23:32 means when it says from evening to evening the Day of atonement Sabbath is to be observed....
And why the 8th day in the evening to the 9th in the evening like was observed by the Antichrist rabbinic Judaism this past year was not worshiping in Truth..
John gives us some detail of who is Antichrist in his letters..
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:
That describes rabbinic Judaism as they deny the Son.
So by that standard , they don’t have the ‘Father’..
Rabbinic Judaism, Antichrist according to scripture.
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Those describe the Roman Catholic church with their doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception, leaving her ‘sinless’..meaning her Son was not born with a ‘sin’ /carnal nature or not born ‘in the flesh’..
Roman catholic church, Antichrist by scripture..
You are relying on two different sides of an Antichrist coin for your work and worship..
I have tested and proved those things and saw the errors of Judaism and Hebrew roots thanks to Him—
I am happy to call today His 1st day, the 16th day of His 2nd month.
I pray you have the scales come of your eyes..
What a beautiful message you bring. Strong meat, with taste for a banquet.
Thank you for your post. It will serve as the thing I was searching for in order to write to a friend who needs to awaken to the Gospel. He is an Historian. Your post is spot on for what his heart may receive eagerly. Your posts are bright flecks of faithfulness. Thank you
Amen! The immediate changes...the changes that come as The Father promises to conform us to the Image of His Son...And Praise be to God the change that is coming in the blink of an eye! Forever in His Presence and Glory!
We all battle with the "old man "...and one of the effects of being born again is we are more aware of our sin.. things we never would have thought of as sin in the past now shake our conscience ... I always think of John Bunyan's comment that His holiest prayer was sin before God .. we see our selfishness, our self centeredness, our anxiety, our self pity, our anger etc as sin ..where before because they were not on some list we would have overlooked..
Funny Thing is God saves "jerks" and uses them for His purposes too ....
What "good works" did the thief on the cross preform ?
A compound word;
con ... with
science ... knowledge
I believe everyone has a conscience flavored by and with the God who allowed the birth .... and that whatever life experiences one has or chooses is filtered through that con science.
Still meditating on the word and it's fascinating to allow God to work in my heart and mind ...
I return you now to your regular programming ...
Yet another keeper! Printing in progress ...
"...born "anothen" (which can mean "again", or "from above")--Jesus obviously meant the latter, since He chides Nicodemus for assuming that it meant the former."How could you miss the plain teaching of Jesus?
"Did you miss the fact that Jesus didn't APPROVE of that answer?"
When Nic tried to understand being ‘Born Again’, he went straight to the natural man explanation of being born again from his mother, in the water world exit to the air world. Jesus immediately took Nic from his natural man perspective to the Spiritual perspective, from the water of birth to the Baptism of The Holy Spiritual birth. Jesus referred first to the natural man perspective —born from the mother in the water of birth— to the spiritual, Born Again from above. Jesus indicates that He is not focusing Nic on the water of birth from the mother, but instead He is focusing Nic on the birth from above. The passage indicates clearly that Jesus referred to the water of birth from the mother by His saying ‘that which is born of flesh is flesh’. Your posts have sought to focus us onto some ritual water baptism as necessary for salvation. Jesus did not do that with Nicodemus in John 3.
If you are otherwise so concerned with form, style, and being polite, then perhaps you may be able to comprehend how if I were to need go through comments, isolate offensive paragraphs, go into detail about how those could be bullying sort of personal critique aimed towards others here (engaged in by yourself) then can you not also see that to do so would be to make the thread all about people here, rather than about issues themselves?
It was yourself who had interjected and made comment towards a thing which initially had not included yourself...
It's been all downhill from there.
As you told another here;
BTW, when Peter spoke in the House of Cornelius, the hearers got Born Again before Peter offered the outward testimony of water baptism. As the Scriptures show on many occasions, the water baptism was an outward sign of the faith sealed in the believer by the Holy Spirit, a sort of bowing into the body of fellow believers that He is The Truth and The Light and their Savior. The water baptismo does not save, it is the saved one’s outward proclamation that they have believed and it is now counted unto them righteousness and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit unto that day of full indwelling (growing nearer than most would even believe it to be). Baptismo by the Holy Spirit doesn’t even save, it is the thing which happens spiritually ‘when’ we believe what Jesus congratulated Peter for acknowledging by the Spirit revealing it to him right before Jesus gave Peter the keys to open the new dispensation of the Church Age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.