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.

[CynicalBear]

You had to use your infallible judgement to determine I was wrong didn’t you?

[paladinan]

sola Scriptura is merely recognition of the principles of all scripture.

Erm... okay. Perhaps you might clarify that incredibly vague statement with something which explains what you actually MEAN, by that?

On that note: REJECTION of "sola Scriptura" is merely recognition of the fact that the Bible nowhere teaches it, and it's self-contradictory, and it's provable nonsense.

Yeshua affirmed that Torah is eternal in Matthew 5. It will exist in force as long as time itself does.

Right. No one's arguing with you, on that point. But surely you see the difference between "Scripture" and "Scripture ALONE"? It may interest you to know that Catholics object to the word "ALONE", and *NOT* to the word "Scripture"...

[FourtySeven]

First of all I didn’t say you were “right” or “wrong”. All I did was show you an example of where you have interpreted Scripture, as requested.

[RnMomof7]

It’s just that generally, when RC’s use the term “Prot” they are referring to those of us born again believers who post here, since there are virtually no mainline Prots who post on the RF, but rather us born again believers.

I do not think they make that distinction MM, they assume that we are talking about Protestants, when we are actually talking about the regenerate (born again)

So they point to "protestant converts to Rome" as some sort of proof... when we know that they were never born again ...they were simply members of a church

That is why we can shrug our shoulders and say "so what"? They do not understand spiritual things because they are spiritually discerned

[RnMomof7]

Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”): The Bible alone is our highest authority.
Sola Fide (“faith alone”): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
Sola Gratia (“grace alone”): We are saved by the grace of God alone.
Solus Christus (“Christ alone”): Jesus Christ alone is our Lord, Savior, and King.
Soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”): We live for the glory of God alone.

[CynicalBear]

Pointing out what scripture says is NOT interpretation.

[paladinan]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!

Speaking for myself, you've just convinced me. I'm now a fervent "sola Scriptura" believer!

:) Sorry... just kidding!

[CynicalBear]

>>All I did was show you an example of where you have interpreted Scripture, as requested.<<

No you didn't. I didn't interpret I simply pointed out what it clearly said.

[paladinan]

That serpent’s breath is still with us!

If you keep smelling serpent breath, then you might want to get the serpent out of your room (and out of your face), FRiend. Just saying. :)

Seriously. I can understand how people can have strong feelings about these important issues, but: do you really think that this sort of tripe is helping the conversation at all?

[paladinan]

Jesus is The Rock.

Of course, He is. Are you suggesting that Jesus couldn't create smaller rocks, who are completely dependent on Him, on which Jesus might build His Church?

Why do y’all insist on puting a man in that position?

I didn't put St. Peter in that position, FRiend; Jesus did. Read Matthew 16:18. I didn't force Jesus to give St. Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; nor did I force Him to rename Simon as "rock". Why is this so difficult? Why tie oneself into pretzels trying to deny the plain sense of the Scripture? Jesus renamed Simon "rock"--whether huge or small, it makes no nevermind--and then promised to build His Church on that rock (i.e. on Peter).

[paladinan]

That's an easy one...Those writings of Ignatius were forgeries written a couple hundred years later and attributed to Ignatius...Likely it was Eusebius...

Aaaaaahhhhh. Gotcha. :)

...and Shakespeare never existed, because all of his writings were really written by Francis Bacon.

...and Eusebius was the one who shot John F. Kennedy from the grassy knoll.

...and (etc.).

Oliver Stone, is that you?

[FourtySeven]

“I didn’t interpret I simply pointed out what it clearly said.”

What it “clearly said” in YOUR OPINION.

I’m not going to argue this point with you because most rational people will be able to see and can see that Scripture is Scripture. Not words I write or words you write or anyone writes.

It just is what it is, and even if one “only points out what it clearly says” then one is STILL giving an interpretation of it. Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. I will rest my case on that if this is all you have in reply to my post 34.

[CynicalBear]

>>What it “clearly said” in YOUR OPINION.<<

Then tell me how it did not say that.

[FourtySeven]

I see no reason to because it’s just going to devolve into “you’re just giving a Catholic Church teaching” so “how can you claim church teaching is right but I’m wrong” which is the same question asked and answered in post 34. At least answered in part as that post demonstrates from reason alone how there is a need for an infallible authority apart from Scripture.

If you don’t agree state your reasons why you believe the arguments (both or just one if you wish there are two arguments there) are faulty. If you don’t wish to do that then our conversation is concluded because we are never going to get ANYWHERE if you won’t at least engage the arguments there. This is because I’ll never be able to convince you there is a need for an infallible magesterium and you’ll never be able to convince me sola scriptura is correct. So we’ll just continue to go round and round accomplishing nothing.

You can dance that dance with another willing Catholic. I’m not interested.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

I have accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior, have turned my life over to Him, and have repented of my sins.

Do Protestants believe that I can lose my salvation if I commit murder and fail to ever repent?

[MamaB]

Amen. What is so hard o understand about that?

[CynicalBear]

>> At least answered in part as that post demonstrates from reason alone how there is a need for an infallible authority apart from Scripture.<<

Your entire premise of post 34 is fallacious. The infallible authority on earth is the Holy Spirit NOT the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit is given to individual believers who, as I have shown, are responsible to consult scripture as to the veracity of any teacher. The Catholic Church has usurped the place of the Holy Spirit in the lives of it's followers. So your entire attempt at putting the Catholic Church in place of the Holy Spirit is anti scripture.

[FourtySeven]

Ok. Explain please how any of the premises in post 34 are erroneous. I’ll post them again for review:

Argument 1

Premise 1: God exists.

Premise 2: God is omnipotent.

Premise 3: The Holy Scriptures teach the truth.

Premise 4: The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today.

Conclusion: God does not want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly (or He does want the truth to be known but has not provided the means - an impossibility give premise 2)

Argument 2

Premise 1: The truth can be known..

Premise 2: God does not want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly. (Conclusion of Argument 1)

Conclusion: Therefore, God wants the truth in the Holy Scriptures to be known ONLY fallibly.

Overall Conclusion

Since God wills the gospel message to be known only with the possibility of error (that is, fallibly), then God wills the possibility of error in communicating His truth. The conclusion therefore is that God has contradicted His very being by willing something that cannot be; namely, willing something other than the truth.

[paladinan]

In the light of all the forgeries and insertions committed by the Roman church, tell me how I am supposed to be sure that these words were penned by Ignatius of Antioch.

The glaringly broad-brush nature of your statement aside, for the moment, let me ask you a similar question (to illustrate):

Given all the forgeries penned by humans of all stripes (I think especially of Luther inserting the word "alone" in Romans 3:28, in order to prop up his new fiction about being "saved by faith alone"... but I digress), in all walks of life... tell me: how I am supposed to be sure that any ancient text was actually penned by the author to which it is attributed, especially since the original manuscripts have all perished?

Beyond that, see my Oliver Stone reference, above. :)

[paladinan]

That doesn’t work FatherofFive. Each was a separate entity with a separate “candlestick”. No ties to any of the others. Jesus didn’t address one entity and tell that entity to correct it’s subordinates.

Perhaps you might explain why Jesus referred to "building His Church" in the *singular* (ekklesia), not in the plural (ekklesiai)? Or are you suggesting that only one of the seven local Churches (we call them "dioceses"... or "bishoprics", if you're British) had the promise never to have the gates of Hades prevail against it?

Yes, there were local Churches. There are thousands of local Churches in the world, even today (the Diocese of Rockford, IL, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, WI, etc.); but no one who's at all familiar with Church history would confuse local Churches with the One True Church to which they all belong. Scripture and Church history both make it abundantly clear that BOTH categories exist, and both were recognized by Christ, Himself.