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.
Everyone should ask themselves: Did Simon Peter know his Scriptures? Did he know the prophecy regarding Eliakim in Isa 22? I think he probably did.
So, having knowledge of Isa 22 and the language used there, he probably took Matt 16:18 the same way Catholics do today: That Christ was giving him a special kind of authority, authority over His Kingdom on Earth. That's what the "keys", as symbols meant then (in the prophecy in Isa 22). It's about time we start realizing that it's clearly what He intended then AND now.
" I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"
Isa 22:21-22 cf Matt 16:18
This must be some rare, idiomatic definition of the word “refute” of which I was not previously aware... :)
Well, that settles it. Scripture means nothing if one can "assume" to be correct and make emphatic declarations.
I am not an ass! I studied Greek. "Whatever" is not in there!
Jesus is THE ROCK!
Way to conflate what I said into something I did NOT say. Also, way to dodge the point I brought up.
For those who ignore Scripture, and make up their own religion.
.
What a catholic would call a “reputable” protestant scholar has to be the true joke of the millennium.
You probably forgot that we have 28 strains of the gospel of Matthew in the original Hebrew, and they all show Peter as his life-long nickname ‘pebble,’ not rock.
Anyway, it would have been difficult for Yeshua to base his already existing assembly on the same weak mortal that denied him thrice at the home of the high priest.
The growth of the assembly began with Abraham anyway.
Why don’t catholics “know stuff?”
.
Dodge makes trucks. Where did you make a point?
All I saw was Roman Catholic "talking points", and you unqualified opinion.
I don't follow any "religion". I am a Christian.
sola Scriptura is merely recognition of the principles of all scripture.
Yeshua affirmed that Torah is eternal in Matthew 5. It will exist in force as long as time itself does.
.
Haha ok. You got your precious “last word”.
Still doesn’t change the fact that the clear parallel between Matt 16:18-19 and Isa 22:21-22 exists no matter what you say. The two are clearly related, to anyone who has no agenda to protect.
But hey, again, you got that precious “LAST WORD”! Yay, YOU!
It's really simple...'IF' you believe the bible...
Who is the foundation of the church??? Jesus of course is the foundation...Jesus is God...
The church is not the Truth...Jesus/God is the truth...
Joh_14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Therefore we Christians know without a shadow of a doubt that God is the pillar and foundation of the Truth...NOT someone's religion...
No, history doesn't show that at all...The list of your early so-called popes was created by Eusebius, a couple hundred years after the fact...
And who was Eusebius??? He was the right hand man of the pagan Constantine...
You started this page with a very bad foundation...It can only crumble from there...
What church did Christ establish, when he told Peter “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 6:18 "
What church are you to take your issues, when Paul said "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
What Church is the pillar an foundation of truth? “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
Be specific. Which Church?
We have the scripture...Where's your word of mouth???
What did Paul teach that is not scripture???
Why is anything after Deu 4:2 relevant? It is all added.
Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
A warning in the beginning of the bible...A warning in the middle of the bible...A warning at the end of the bible...How many warnings will it take to convince you???
You should read the Bible.
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thes 2:15
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” John 16:12-13
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
I believe Scripture. Do you?
Seriously, that's all you got??? Your religion was built on those scriptures...They apply to the Mormon church as well as to the Jehovah Witnesses...How do we know the Mormons are not the true Church???
I guess English wasn't your first language. What are you trying to say?
Oh, baloney. Do some research.
Because they don't come from Peter, and the Church Christ established
Y’all are the ones making up junk.
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.