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.
He speaks for me.
I find nothing in his posts that I disagree with and find them well stated as I would expect from a lawyer. I get a lot out of them and have several saved for future reference.
Count me in when he says "we".
Intellectual assent doesn't save anyone.
Faith, trust, does, and it produces works.
So how do you explain the passage in James in light of Paul's comments here....?
Romans 4:1-25 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Romans 5:1-2 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Well done! The double speak of Catholics at times gets them sideways with “merit”.
So do you do the good works of your own volition?
I would like to know whether he thinks the good works are of his own volition or if it emanates from the Holy Spirit.
So, if someone claims they believe and are saved and adds good works to their lives, are they saved?
Keep preaching it bro. I know when I was a catholic, the faith/works thing was confusing to me too, but eventually, the truth sank into my thick skull. Even after I got saved, it still took time to understand the concept. I freely admit, that my primary motivation in coming to true faith in Christ, was to make sure my fire insurance was paid up, and I could avoid Hell. 😇 Keep up the good work.
I LOVE this verse. As it tells us exactly WHO is performing the good works in a believer!
Any old church? Once again, where did you get that?
>>if taking an unrepentant sinner to them", then that logically requires unanimity between the Churches...<<
No, it doesn't. It's the local assembly they were to take it to. Not some hierarchical man made organization.
>>if the 7 Churches have 7 different ideas of what constitutes a "sin"?<<
They were each addressed independently of the others weren't they.
>>So it's not the mere fact that a hierarchy is involved, but it's the POPE, SPECIFICALLY, with whom you claim to have a beef.<<
I'm sure you would like to split them up for discussion but they are actually one and the same problem.
>>And how, exactly, do you come to the conclusion (aside from personal taste and raw personal opinion) that he's teaching "another Gospel from what the apostles taught"?<<
Many ways but one easy one would be the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe it.
>>I see the word "Nicolaitans" only twice in the Bible (Revelation 2:6 and 2:15), and it's left undefined in both cases.<<
It's just a matter of searching the Greek.
Greek - “Nico,” in Greek, is “to rule over or conquer,” and “lait” is “the common people,” the laity. Jesus Himself said it was not to be so with His assembly.
Mark 10:42 Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 "But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant;
In Revelation He said He hates it.
hey!
He can count me in!
I guess you're a
'Saved by grace; Kept by works.'
kinda person.
.
>> But this (the previous comment) is the same mistake which editor-surveyor was making: it’s assuming (without any proof at all, but relying only on personal opinion) that “water” refers primarily (or even exclusively) to “amniotic fluid” <<
.
You attribute statements to me that I’ve never made. It was in a reply to me by someone else.
To me, it is very obvious that Yeshua was explaining the new incorruptible body that we will have after the first resurrection, and the solid proof of that is his equating in verse 8, our contrition to that of the wind, invisible, yet showing traces of our presence.
That is exactly how Yeshua was after his resurrection, appearing out of nowhere, and walking through solid walls. It will be a transformation of our presence to a different realm, not of time, nor material things, so our appearance when we return to Earth to rule with him will be similar, on Earth, but not a part of Earth.
That is the only way we can survive the complete destruction of the material/temporal universe that Peter described.
Yeshua was definitely not addressing Baptism. Nicodemus, being a high priest, was already familiar with it (the Mikva). Yeshua’s conversation with Nicodemus was about the absolute necessity of the change that was going to come.
.
Same here. We know who it is that gets credit.
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:Paul here nowhere mentions expiation for sin. We do however suffer persecution and affliction when we present the Gospel, but because the world hates Christ, and therefore it hates us. That's all Paul is talking about, except his personalizing his portion of it. The word used there for "affliction" is θλίψις ("thlipsis"), and that word is never used in connection with Christ's redemptive death on our behalf. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Jesus did that for us, precisely because we could not do it for ourselves. If He had left any part of His redemptive work undone, we would all still be lost. There is no half measure possible here, neither by reason nor by Scripture. He offered Himself once for all, and sat down at the right hand of the Father because his death satisfied the debt of sin. To suggest that we become co-redeemers of ourselves is to insert ourselves in a place that can only ever be occupied by Christ, an activity that to me suggests the most extreme spiritual danger. I cannot recommend it.
(Colossians 1:21-24)
What I am thinking of is those who claim to have faith, add works because they think they need to, and then think they’re saved because they have the works to *prove* it, and yet have no evidence of a regenerate spirit at all.
They are the ones who seem to think that salvation is fire insurance and that we can go on and sin all we like now that we’re saved. The ones who wonder why we bother to pray or go to church now that we’re saved.
Context!
You try to dodge it , but context solidly proves my point.
This is not a dictionary issue. Biblical issues rarely are, as it is unusual for context not to be the main factor.
.
"Scoot".
That was your own word said to another.
By the same tokens you can go scoot and reread your own comments, and look for bullying. Or at least drop all the self justification postings, wherein you bring additional accusations against myself each and every single time.
I'd be a much nicer a sweeter guy if I didn't see that sort of stuff mixed in with so many comments here.
After years and years of it, I'm left raw from it all.
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.