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.
Not if they are wrong. They would be just like y’all and Muslims. We want the real truth not some made up beliefs. We believe what the Bible says.
I'll give you two.
Revelation 14:13 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Revelation 22:19 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.
Seriously. You think God changed His mind about things being written down then told John, an apostle to write?
None. Jesus is the Rock of all believers.
So when the Bible says, "This is my Body" - you believe it?
Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?
But you still won’t answer the simple questions asked.
No it doesn't...It comes from Petros...And here's the definition...
petrōdēs
pet-ro'-dace
From G4073 and G1491; rock like, that is, rocky: - stony.
Rocky, stoney...Peter was a stone...Thanks for providing additional proof for that...Your other references come from Petra, a huge rock...So we know Jesus did not build his church on stoney ground...He built it on a huge rock...
and He wasn't slighting or insulting Simon as He did it (or would you suggest that Jesus would say "Blessed are you, Simon barJonah, [etc.]", right before belittling him by calling him a pebble, simply to contrast it with a Name for Himself?).
Of course Jesus wasn't slighting Peter...He complimented Peter by calling him a little rock...No other apostles got that distinction...Jesus did however contrast that little rock with the mountain of a rock...
Jesus Christ "magically" healed the sick, raised the dead, and promises those who take up their cross and follow Him the magic trick of eternal life.
That same Jesus Christ left His Apostles with the power to perform miracles and annoint others to do so whether the "Bible believing" Self and Self Alone crowd want to admit that Jesus Christ still works "magic" through those who have been anointed by the Apostles or not.
Of course, if your point is that the Talmud is right and Jesus Christ was just a magician and false propeht that's another matter, one that's a good fit for people who only accept the anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisee Approved !! Luther Subset of Scripture rather than the entire Word of God and interpret the subset the do claim to accept to suit their Self and Self Alone
Please don’t ping me again. I will return the favor.
1,891 posted on Friday, December 21, 2012 12:38:42 by CynicalBear
==============================================
People who do not and cannot keep their word are by definition untrustworthy.
I think you must be meaning to post to another FReeper because nothing in your post to me squares with anything I posted to you.
I do read the bible...You are implying that Paul passed on some oral tradition that wasn't included in scripture...I'll ask again...What is it??? Where is it??? Whom was it given to... If what you say is true, these should be very easy questions to answer...
Who could say? Even the Devil can quote scripture.
For me, my church...For someone else, their church...
Here, pull my finger . . .
The church that Paul the apostle became the leader of...AND, the one headed by a guy named Simon Magus...
You might want to first read the posted Scripture to which he said blah before piling on.
LOL! Let's look at the real Matthew 6:18.
Matthew 6:18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. Then we will look at the verse you like to use.
Matthew 16:18 'And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock (Petros - a movable unstable rock), and upon this rock (petra - unmovable bedrock) I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;
First of all "gates" are to keep things out and things in.
Second - Hades is NOT hell. It is the abode of the of the unseen. Where ALL the dead reside. It will in no way defeat the ekklesia of Christ in that they will one day be raised from that place to abide with Christ forever. The Catholic Church lies about that passage.
>>the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth<<
You seem to like that passage yet deny what other scripture says.
Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
You see, that same Spirit has been given to true believers. Once again the Catholic Church lies.
>>the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.<<
One more time. Pillars and foundations hold things up. The ekklesia of Christ is to hold up the truth of scripture. The Catholic Church makes things up which are not in scripture and twists the meaning of other scripture. Once again the Catholic Church lies.
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.