Are you infallible?

One Fold ^ | December 10, 2013 | Brian Culliton

[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.

[paladinan]

Okay... a moment to jump back into the fray! :)

Remember we said earlier that faith doesn't come to the party alone. There will always be works resulting from genuine faith.

Yes, that's true... though I'd qualify that (and I don't expect you'll object to this) by saying that such works need not be visible to any given mortal spectator, and that no one is obliged to do the impossible. For example: the "good thief" (whom the Cathoic Church venerates as "St. Dismas") had neither the opportunity nor the ability to "feed the poor, etc." from his cross; but he offered what he could: his act of faith (which, by the way, IS a work, in and of itself), and his humble resignation of his torment and death ("we deserve what we have done!", cf. Luke 23:41) to the Will of God. I'd gently add that, if anyone thinks that this isn't "work", they haven't thought the matter through! From my own experience, I know how hard it can be to surrender my self-love and self-will... and I'm not upon a cross!

But look what James says next. He rebukes the man who says he has faith, but whose life does not show it. How? By declaring that faith is manifested through good works! Just as you yourself said earlier. This is truly the evangelical perspective, and I am sorry I am having such a hard time helping you see this.

No, you've done a fine job with your explanation; it's just that (as I think you suggested, before) we have a difference of view as to whether the works are "substantially productive" in the process of justification, vs. whether they're simply a "handy and good after-effect of something already done". I believe the former, and you seem (as per your commentary) to believe the latter. I do not at all deny that good works will ALSO result from faith; but there's nothing in Scripture which insists that it comes ONLY from one who is justified, nor does anything in Scripture require that we view the good works as having only an after-the-fact "indicator" role with justification. My view allows me to read James 2:24 and not try to explain away the plain language which says "a man is justified by works"; I can allow that, while at the same time allowing the perfectly reasonable idea that the justified man will ALSO manifest good works by virtue of his justification! It's not "either/or"; it's "both/and". (You may have heard, in some circles, that this is a key difference between Protestants and Catholics: Protestants insist on "either/or" in many places where Catholics see the possibility of both/and. For example: the Holy Eucharist IS a "symbol"... but it's ALSO a REALITY; nowhere are we required to believe that a symbol must be a "mere" symbol, and nothing more!)

More later...

[Springfield Reformer]

IIRC, we read that Abraham and the entourage (including his son) were heading to the altar mountain and Abraham told the entourage to wait at the foot of the mountain, that ‘THEY’ would return to them when the sacrifice was completed. I have thought of that in regards to what Paul wrote in Romans regarding ‘faithing’ in God’s Promises. Abraham was so sure of God’s Promise in Isaac would Abraham be blessed that even going to sacrifice him on that altar he told the men with them to wait for THEM to return from the event. Brother, that’s walking in FAITH.

Amen, yes it is. One wonders how it would go if one of us was put to the same challenge of faith. It would take a miracle for me to get through that. But that's when grace shines brightest, when the darkest nights descend, so that God gets all the glory, from now till world's end.

Peace,

SR

[metmom]

"Saved" has at least three meanings, as I already mentioned, earlier; there is no such thing as "being saved, once and for all" while one is still alive on Earth.

Certainly we are saved NOW here on earth, because today is the day of salvation and while our bodies are still physically present here on the earth, in the spiritual realm, we are already seated with Christ in the heavenly places.

The Holy Spirit already sealed us until the day of redemption, the day when we ARE in heaven and our salvation is complete body, soul, and spirit. While we are here on earth in our bodies, our salvation is a done deal but is still being worked out and refined for whatever purpose God has for us in heaven.

[MHGinTN]

I'm finding some interesting spin on what you've written so clearly, like: "... we have a difference of view as to whether the works are "substantially productive" in the process of justification, vs. whether they're simply a "handy and good after-effect of something already done". I believe the former, and you seem (as per your commentary) to believe the latter."

It is not the works that are the focus, it is the Person to whom the glory is due FOR THE WORKS, the One who has already come into the believer, the 'faither'. The administration of the Holy Spirit IN THE BELIEVER is not some after effect, it is the transformative life in Christ!To phrase your comments so they can be viewed as straw is, well, irritating. I do not read your posts as saying what the replier has tried to fashion from your teaching.

So, to repeat the following for Catholaholics, Many are called but few are chosen. Faithful is He that calleth you, for He will also do it. So of the many called, why are so few chosen? Because so few will let Him do it, let Him transform them through the indwelling Holy Spirit sealing our soul unto the full redemption moment coming soon ... Good works are to the glory of The God Who is within us, Who is greater than he who is in the world.

[paladinan]

As I recall, I did not contest that ὑστερήματα (husteremata) was a lack or deficiency.

All right. Given the word "behind" (which is ambiguous--it can mean "behind" as in "falling behind, deficient", and it can also mean "behind" as in "backing up, bracing, supporting, eclipsed by"), I needed to ask, to be sure.

The question is how Paul is using this comparison, this gap between something and something.

If you mean that we need to find out the nature of the "deficiency in" something, then yes... I heartily agree.

Is he saying Christ's redemptive act was lacking in any way? I don't think so, else he would not have just told them back in verse 21 that they had been reconciled, past tense, by the death of Christ. An incomplete redemptive act of Christ is not in view here.

I agree completely. It's also backed up by the perfect passive participle used to describe the effect of Jesus' death: "It is consummated [Gk: tetelestai]", which indicates (by the conjugation) an utter completion whose effects perdure through time. (I'd also add, as a side-note, that this is also true of "kecharitOmenE" = "full of grace", in Luke 1:28... but I digress. :) )

But if the act of redemption is complete, then what is incomplete? As I stated before, possibly this is Paul saying his own affliction on behalf of the Colossians begins to close the gap a little with Christ's much greater trial. In which case the deficiency is Paul's as compared to Christ's, which I believe would be allowed by the genitive used here, and that is possibly why the KJV uses "behind."

Ergh... if you had any idea how close you are to the Catholic teaching on this point... :) It's tantalizing!

The Catholic answer to this question of "What is lacking in the sufferings of Christ?" is one brief answer: "our participation in it". The whole NT is of a piece with this idea; St. Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12 (and elsewhere) about the Church being One Body, wherein if one member suffers, all the members suffer; and if one member is exalted, all are exalted; this harmonizes with it. This also makes perfect sense of the idea of WHY we suffer--and not simply on the natural level of "because mean men hate Christ, and they hate us, too!"... since that simply begs the question of "why does God ALLOW such evil men to harm the good?" Suffering is a vehicle through which we conform ourselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; the NT is replete with quotes to that effect. But more: the Communion of Saints (to which all who pray the Apostles' Creed and/or the Nicene Creed subscribe) confirms and even REQUIRES this; the Saints share in a "commerce of spiritual goods", as 1 Cor 12 and Col 1:24 make plain. If we are saved, we will not be saved as individuals; we will be saved as a unified Body of Christ, Who is also the Bride of Christ.

Alternatively, we can say that the affliction of any believer is felt personally and directly by Christ Himself, as we are in Him and He is in us, and in that sense, the persecution of believers for preaching the Gospel is concrete affliction to Christ, and will not be complete till Christ returns. By this understanding, Paul would here be claiming to be making his own "fair share" contribution to that lack, not as though anything lacks in Christ Himself, but in the afflictions ordained to be experienced by His body while we live on this hostile planet until He returns.

There's certainly nothing wrong with that view, so far as it goes. I'd only add that it's part of the whole picture.

[paladinan]
Also: redemptive suffering does not expiate sin; rather, it calls down graces by which the person in question can more perfectly cooperate with the expiation of Christ’s redeeming death on the cross.

[SR]
Inasmuch as "redemptive suffering" appears to have been invented out of whole cloth anyway, I am not surprised it can be called redemptive without actually being redemptive.

:) Nice try, FRiend... but nope. Redemptive suffering (which is simply a handy title, by the way--it could theoretically be changed, if a more suitable descriptor for "our suffering, when offered up to Christ in union with His perfect suffering, benefits the Body of Christ in a way which would not have happened had we not offered it up" could be found) is a concrete reality, and you have no basis (apart from your own raw opinion) for saying that it's a fiction. Besides: isn't that a bit "stone-in-glass-house-ish" of you, given the "conjured-up" nature of "sola Scriptura", "sola fide", "once saved, always, saved", and the like? :)

Invented things are like that. Very malleable. :)

:) I'll remember that, when next I need to replace my gold ring (since gold, which is extremely malleable, must be a man-made invention)!

[Springfield Reformer]

:) Nice try, FRiend... but nope. Redemptive suffering (which is simply a handy title, by the way--it could theoretically be changed, if a more suitable descriptor for "our suffering, when offered up to Christ in union with His perfect suffering, benefits the Body of Christ in a way which would not have happened had we not offered it up" could be found) is a concrete reality, and you have no basis (apart from your own raw opinion) for saying that it's a fiction. Besides: isn't that a bit "stone-in-glass-house-ish" of you, given the "conjured-up" nature of "sola Scriptura", "sola fide", "once saved, always, saved", and the like? :)

I'm not sure where you're going with all that.  If I am critiquing "redemptive suffering" for being a label that applies to no particular reality, it is because that is the label you gave it. Words mean things.  Don't call it redemptive if it isn't. That is a fiction. If you want to rescue it by calling it something different, OK, do that.  We both know suffering plays a role in the life and growth of the body of Christ.  It is not redemptive in the same way Christ's death for us is redemptive.  That is my primary objection.  

Your venture off into the Sola Scripture question at this point actually makes no sense to me whatever.  I can't even form a good speculation of the point you're trying to make. So the best I can give you on that is a puzzled look.  But I'm not that good at using emoticons or posting cool pictures, so you'll just have to imagine it. :)

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

Wait, reread your post and I got what you were saying. Yes, we both use terms not explicitly laid out in Scripture. No, it’s not inconsistent to critique an extrapolated term for naming something very poorly. We think Sola Scripture, Sola Fide, etc. embody what they say. Though granted, in serious dialog we have to do some prep work to put them in context. There’s a straw man version for every one of them running around like an undead zombie. No matter how many times we blow it up, the straw magically reconstitutes and comes back at us later.

Anyway, just wanted you to know I did get your point. Still don’t agree. But I was up late last night, so I’m running a bit tired today. Oh well.

Peace,

SR

[paladinan]

Just as a friendly reminder: if you talk, quote, and/or write about another FReeper, it’s politely expected that you include them in the “ping” list...

[paladinan]

:) No harm, no foul. And I definitely empathize with the “lack of sleep phenomenon”! Two nights ago, we had one of our kitties “sleep” in the bedroom with us (we recently adopted a new cat to fill the empty space left by the death of a previous, beloved one), since the new and old cat don’t get along AT ALL... but the night was filled with kitty walking “beats” around the bed, purring in my ear, walking on my face, draping a tail across my mouth, and the like. No sleep for this fellow, that night... and work found me to be a zombie in slow motion!

[paladinan]

Certainly we are saved NOW here on earth,

Yes, and no. See my previous post (#784).

[MHGinTN]

Just a friendly suggestion, read the little essay on my profile page titled ‘A Word study regarding salvation’.

[paladinan]

Very nice. Protestant, and mistaken, but nice.

But I was referencing a forum policy, while you were not; if you quote me and talk about me, it’s courteous (and expected) that you ping me. If you forgot (as I do, on occasion), no problem; just do it next time. No need for any fuss or prevarication.

“If you want to argue the previous claim, then go back to the earlier thread, ping all the interested parties and say something like “Here you say the sky is green. Why?” The respondent will be obligated then to explain the green comment in context with that particular thread and parties involved in it.” -Religion Forum guidelines

In short: would you be so kind as not to talk about me behind my back?

[CynicalBear]

Ok, so of your own volition you can merit part of your salvation. That’s an amazing admission. Whether you admit it or not that is what works based salvation is.

[CynicalBear]

Christ is head of the ekklesia and has no stand in. There are no such things as priests in the New Testament church other then the priesthood of all believers. The Catholic Church priests, Bishops, and pope don’t even qualify in the New Testament church per Paul. And as for length of endurance you don’t give the Catholic Church near enough credit. The Babylonian religion which the Catholic Church incorporated has lasted much longer than that.

[metmom]

Yes, and yes.

I saw the post.

Scripture says otherwise.

We are saved. Past tense. NOW.

We are new creatures in Christ. We exist in both the physical realm and the spiritual realm at the same time. We are alive in the spiritual realm NOW, being seated with Christ in the heavenly places.

Our salvation is done, finished, secure in heaven.

On earth here, we are being conformed to the likeness of Christ, continuing His mission of bringing the good news to the world, doing the good works he planned ahead for us to do, to bring Him praise and glory.

But we ARE saved NOW.

Jesus tells us here that we already have eternal live when we believe.

John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

[smvoice]

I think in every case, the “we are NOW saved” scriptures come from Paul’s epistles. In the “we are NOT now saved” camp, those scriptures are pulled from James, Peter, John, etc. All of whom ministered to the Jews. Not a koin-ki-dink, if only people understand who wrote what when to whom and why. {{{SIGH}}}

[paladinan]

"Merit", yes. "Earn", no. Merit refers to a grace given by God which is contingent on obeying His Will in some manner... and it has nothing, whatsoever, to do with our initial justification/salvation. Any idea of "works-based salvation" is Pelagianism, and it is entirely contained in the creative imagination of the one imagining it.

[paladinan]

Unpack that a bit, for me; what’s your point?

[paladinan]

Christ is head of the ekklesia and has no stand in.

Of course, Christ is Head of the Church! And as for "stand-in", it depends on what you mean by that flippant-sounding phrase. Are you saying that the kings in the Davidic Kingdom never had prime ministers? Scripture disagrees with you (cf. Isaiah 22... and did you ever notice the eerie similarity between that and Matthew 16:18-20?)

There are no such things as priests in the New Testament church other then the priesthood of all believers.

Yes, there were, and there are; look for the Greek word "presbyteros" and "presbyteroi". There were also bishops (episkopos/oi) and deacons (diakonos/oi).

The Catholic Church priests, Bishops, and pope don’t even qualify in the New Testament church per Paul.

You'll have to explain your reasoning for that one; I'm not even sure what that means, as worded. And as for length of endurance you don’t give the Catholic Church near enough credit. The Babylonian religion which the Catholic Church incorporated has lasted much longer than that.

:) Don't eat cucumbers before going to bed; some say that it gives very strange dreams such as the one you describe, here. That, or an overdose of Vitamin B6 could have brought it on...

[smvoice]

It’s very simple. Give me the scriptures that support your “NOT NOW saved” points. What books are they located in?