Posted on 04/28/2015 8:36:56 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Its 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; thats 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 cant! 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. Its 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. Johns 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 Johns intention for us to become believers by reading it? Amazing; isnt 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.
“baptism does also now save us.” KJV
What do all Protestants teach regarding the necessity of baptism for salvation?
Let's make this real simple.
I thought the arguments put forth in my previous posts were simple. But I'm willing to listen to/read what you have to say as long as it stays on point. Which it does.
1. God's infallible word is recorded in scripture just as He directed it to be.
2. The Holy Spirit was given to born again individual to be able to infallibly determine what those words mean.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.
Now, if the Holy Spirit was given us that we might "understand" would you still suggest it's fallible? Would you still suggest it's unnkowable? Would you still say it's "by human authority" when scripture says those who have been born again have been born of the Spirit and it is He would gives us understanding?
What you have done here, whether you realize it or not, whether you admit it or not, is object to Premise 4 of argument 1. Which is fine. You have to object to that premise in order to remain a Christian and attempt to save sola scriptura from the logical problem illustrated in the conclusion of argument 1.
You've basically said that Premise 4 is false because it's a straw man argument. That is, there is another source of infallibility not being considered in that construct, to whit: the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit, when He is present in the believer, protects Scriptural interpretation from error and thus, there is no reason for a human authority at all. So again, you reject premise 4. I think this is a fair representation of what you are saying here. If not, stop me here so we can proceed with agreement elsewhere. But if this is a fair representation then let's proceed.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's basically claiming the charism of infallibility for yourself. You are saying, whether you wish to admit it or not is irrelevant, that you now have the charism of infallibility (when it comes to reading and understanding Scripture correctly). You have this charism because the Holy Spirit is in you, and He guides you personally to all truth (in the Scriptures). That's what you're saying. But that's ALSO the very definition of the charism of infallibility!
So you're claiming that for yourself, with no way to verify it (other than to read and interpret Scripture the exact way you do of course which is a self-serving "test") but yet deny anyone else can have the same or even lesser gift namely the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him.
So you acknowledge that it's the Holy Spirit that protects one from theological error, but insists its only you (and those like you) who have this gift. The Popes can't though, because they disagree with what you believe. And you have the Holy Spirit.
This is actually all well and good but if this is indeed your reasoning then you haven't disproven that the Pope and his Bishops don't have the charism all you've done is just insist, for an unproveable reason, that you have it and they don't.
This is all very well and good but again, what proof do you have that's outside yourself, and outside your interpretation of Scripture, that you have the charism and they don't? It's all very circular for you but not for the Church because the Church doesn't deny the charism of infallibility, she doesn't deny that indeed the Holy Spirit teaches us all truth, she just says it's through a particular means that employs mankind. You reject that last notion (that the Holy Spirit teaches through mankind) but yet have no proof no reason to reject that, other than what you claim is the Holy Spirit's guidance as you read Scripture.
You have effectively recognized the weakness of the argument in the OP but your solution to it solves nothing. All you've done, really, is substitute the Holy Spirit for your own conclusions. It's easy to *claim* the Holy Spirit is your teacher but there is no proof of that if one rejects, by other words, the very gift He could give to assure that, which is the charism of infallibility.
You can't have it both ways in other words. You can't say "the charism of infallibility doesn't exist" and yet also claim "I know this because the Holy Spirit taught me so through the Scriptures". Those two statements are incompatible.
Um, you appeared to quote the KJV. Would you be so kind as to post the chapter and verse from which you lifted that ‘quote’?
Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
1 Peter 3:21
.
Protestants do not worship the sun god by proxy, nor expect forgiveness for our sins by eating the sun god’s cookie.
We do not keep the 40 days of Tammuz as catholics do either.
Satan is at the center of those practices, without question.
We do not call a sinful mortal the “mother of God” either.
.
Do Protestants believe that I can lose my salvation if I commit murder and fail to ever repent?
Why don't you find self-described Protestants and ask THEM?
“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” —James 2:24
What do all Protestants teach regarding the relationship between faith, works and salvation?
If you claim you repented of your sins and then go out and murder and fail to repent, then you never repented of them in the first place or you wouldn’t have gone out and murdered.
1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
You can check my profile page and see how at least one Protestant teaches ‘it’. ‘Faithing’, to faithe,
Context Context Context
1 Peter 3: 20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us,.... The ark, and deliverance by it, as it was a type of Christ, and salvation by him, so it was a figure of baptism, and baptism was the antitype of that; or there is something in these which correspond, and answer to, and bear a resemblance to each other: as the ark was God's ordinance, and not man's invention, so is baptism, it is of heaven, and not of men; and as the ark, while it was preparing, was the scorn and derision of men, so is this ordinance of the Gospel; it was rejected with disdain by the Scribes and Pharisees, as it still is by many; and as the ark, when Noah and his family were shut up in it by God, represented a burial, and they seemed, as it were, to be buried in it, it was a lively emblem of baptism, which is expressed by a burial, Romans 6:4 and as they in the ark had the great deep broke up under them, and the windows of heaven opened over them, pouring out waters upon them, they were, as it were, immersed in, and were covered with water, this fitly figured baptism by immersion; nor were there any but adult persons that entered into the ark, nor should any be baptized but believers; to which may be added, that as the one saved by water, so does the other; for it is water baptism which is here designed, which John practised, Christ gave a commission for, and his disciples administered: it saves not as a cause, for it has no causal influence on, nor is it essential to salvation. Christ only is the cause and author of eternal salvation; and as those only that were in the ark were saved by water, so those only that are in Christ, and that are baptized into Christ, and into his death, are saved by baptism; not everyone that is baptized, but he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved,
Context , context context
If one believes he is saved or damned by his works , then one comforts oneself with the idea that "I am not as bad as my neighbor"
The Bible tells us "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." That is the inspired word of God . It does not say that some have fallen short and some are "close"
May I quote James to you?
Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.,
So the thief is also a murder in Gods eyes.
No where does Jesus say or imply that one is saved by works.
The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation . t tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:18 Yea a man may SAY, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
..
This is an amplification of the teaching of Jesus that we know a tree by the fruit it bears. It is how we know the saved from the unsaved. It does not declare that the man has faith ...but that he SAYS he has faith.
This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one .Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.
The bible is clear that it is God that gives the faith and it is God that ordains the works of the saved
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Hbr 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
What do all Protestants teach regarding the relationship between faith, works and salvation?
What is the infallible magisterium's interpretation of this scripture..please cite the Magisterium's document so we can read it
>>All you've done, really, is substitute the Holy Spirit for your own conclusions.<<
Um....what? Yeah, no kidding! I have submitted myself to the Holy Spirit to guide and give me understanding as it was promised in scripture.
>>which is the charism of infallibility.<<
Dude! Dude! Stop with trying to give credit to man already! The only infallibility involved is that of the Holy Spirit. If you want to continue with me prove from scripture that any man is given infallibility.
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.