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.
Do Protestants believe that I can lose my salvation if I commit murder and fail to ever repent?” <<
.
Do you believe the words of Yeshua?
Matthew 24
[11] And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
[12] And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
[13] But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Has one that has knowingly failed to repent of a serious sin “Endured to the end?”
.
.
>> “..and the first two of those five were invented by “men alone.” <<
.
Good luck on getting that by the guy whose words are recorded in Matthew 24, when you stand before him after the Earth and the heavens have fled from his face because “no place was found for them.”
.
Really? You wrote: "In the light of all the forgeries and insertions committed by the Roman church[...]", right?
Yes, I did.
If you think that this isn't a general waving of hands and saying, "Everyone, behold all the forgeries and insertions committed by the Roman church[sic]!" (without so much as specifying the alleged forgeries and insertions[...]
C'mon... It's a huge field, spanning a millennia, and well known... Need I haul out the 'Donation of Constantine', the Isadorian Decretals', not to mention, and more to the point, Psuedo-Ignatius, some of which were venerated in your church for a very long time... And many, many more... Especially as regards insertions. Look into it.
much less proving that the Catholic Church was somehow responsible--i.e. "committed" them), then I don't know what to tell you. [...]
Well, it would help if the Roman church would not only renounce them, but quit using them as reference material... Then the accusation would be less plainly made. But then, they can't to that, as the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. Where is the virgin without the Protoevangelium of James? Where is the official papal succession without the Isidorian Decretals?
That statement is simply dripping with anti-Catholic bias [...]
Indeed, and it is well earned.
it's very rich in insinuation, and virtually empty of content. If you'd like to be more credible, you'll need to be more specific, on all counts; general "smears" such as this statement make for amusing rhetorical theater, but they simply won't do, in a logical argument.
Well, where would you like me to start?
[roamer_1::] Look into the known insertions and forgeries, and it is easy to conclude the motive.
If one starts out by assuming that one's opponent is a demon, then yes...
But I did no such thing. At the time, I threw everything I believed on the alter to see what was dross. In fact, I treated you guys more kindly than Calvin (with whom I was raised).
[...] "concluding" a motive would be trivially easy. The conclusion would be invalid, of course... but very easily reached.
Continuing to bolster one's position, while using admittedly spurious documents is what, IMHO, ascribes motive.
[roamer_1:] That it is institutional in nature goes without saying too.
Who's denying that? I, for one, don't find anything nefarious about institutions, per se. Do you?
Well, yes I do, as a matter of fact (power corrupts and all that), but that is not the point - Rather, that the motive is institutional... Beyond the mere forger and beyond the mere insertion or inclusion. A worthy institution would purge such things, regardless of the impact to doctrine... The very fact of a false attribution makes the whole of a document to hold no weight, as an instance. To endorse the content of such a document as reference in spite of it's false attribution basically endorses the obvious lie.
That's odd: I went through the same sort of thing in college (when I almost lost my Faith in God altogether), and I came to the exact opposite conclusion! So did Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, John Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, and countless other men who are far more brilliant than I.
Sorry, but I can't speak for others - For me, either this tradition thing is true, or it is not, and with my soul supposedly in the balance, I am not willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. YHWH proves himself - I would expect no less from his agents... IMHO, y'all are in the uncomfortable position of being without proof. Lots of circular demands to bow to a circular authority, but nothing at the root.
[roamer_1:] There are several means, but lets get right down to the Bible itself, eh? isn't that where you are going?
It wasn't, actually; I was confining myself to the spurious claim that "perhaps all the writings attributed to St. Ignatius of Antioch were forgeries"; not only has that no basis in fact, but it's a rather "convenient" sort of conclusion for anti-Catholic-Church people to reach... yes? [...]
Sure, but you've got to look at that from the other way around - It should not be my job to prove documents that all y'all submit as factual, that is YOUR (all y'all) job. If I find, time after time, that the documents that go to the heart of your tradition's power were, after a long time being held as true, then unequivocally proven false, how much faith can I put in the veracity of what remains? 'Because we say so' ain't good enough.
[...] I might just as easily dismiss all of Luther's writings as mere forgeries, written by a Catholic as a "stunt".
Knock yourself out. As I said just the other day, Luther is just a man. His entire corpus could be thrown away, and it would not shake my faith one iota. I do not follow men.
[roamer_1:]If I don't believe your church, how can I believe the Bible?'... Isn't that the play?
Not at this point, no. I'd gently ask, though: how did you arrive at the conclusion that the 66 books in your Protestant Bible, and those ALONE (there's that troublesome word, again!), comprise the Sacred Scriptures?
First, I do not see 'canon' as you do (a concept pretty foreign to Hebrew thought), so the 'ALONE' part doesn't work as you might think. But to answer your question, encryption. Torah, particularly, is well defended by encryption of several kinds. It is literally impossible, in my mind, for even one letter to be out of place in the Masoretic (no vowels) text. It is a faithful copy, and encryption that is far, far beyond our means to design, even now, prove it to be the very Word of YHWH.
The same is present in the Tanakh, book by book, and I am reasonably sure of the order as well (because of super long encryption only present in proper order). The same can be said of the New Testament, though present only (and brokenly) in the Peshitta, though even in the Greek, heptatic structures well beyond our ability still exist, as well as Hebraic puns, which add meaning one would otherwise miss. Bear in mind, though my confidence is high wrt Greek texts, I have not finished that study fully, and won't for years.
.
>> “So, by your reasoning, your interpretations of the Word are both private and false?” <<
.
As I said, catholics just can’t get it!
I have no interpretations of the word. I accept it as written, as the Holy Spirit delivers it to me when I read it.
I don’t try to change it, nor make it more comfortable with a different “understanding.”
I don’t have to explain what a verse means when I post it; the yelping of the catholic, and easy-believer, dogs lets me know that what the Holy Spirit told me stands out to all. Just some will not accept it.
[CynicalBear]So... FatherofFive said that the seven Churches of Revelation are seven local Churches, united in One Church. You reply that FatherofFive is "wrong"... and the basis for that is, apparently, the fact that The local "assemblies" are members of the universal ekklesia and are the visible part of that ekklesia.
How many "churches" did Jesus have John write to in Revelation?
[FatherofFive]
Great question. There is a Catholic Church in New York. There is a Catholic Church in Boston. There is a Catholic Church in San Diego. And on and on. Many Churches. One Church. All these Churches are one. One Body. One spirit. There is no question on what the meaning of what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
-— 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. -—
So when I announced that I had accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior and had repented of my sins, I would have been mistaken about my eternal security?
How can this be reconciled with the doctrine of “eternal assurance of salvation” that some Bible-believing Protestants believe?
Is God omniscient ? Does anything we do SURPRISE God ?
The Bible is the only thing we need for salvation. We do not need man made traditions because man is often wrong. I trust God’s Word over man any day. I was talking about praying to Mary and saints. We do not need them. Jesus is the only answer. No where in the Bible is anything stated about doing either. I have gotten the distinct impression that y’all do not care for the Bible as much as your traditions such as praying to Mary. That says a lot about y’all.
-— Is God omniscient ? Does anything we do SURPRISE God ? -—
No. But it would surprise me, since some Protestants would tell me that my salvation was assured, because I had repented and accepted Jesus as my Savior.
-—…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 -(as the ark saved the Jews)- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience— through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,-—
So Protestants believe this DOESN’T mean that baptism now saves us through the resurrection of Christ?
I think some do, interpreting this differently.
Paul tells us that “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”
-— Has one that has knowingly failed to repent of a serious sin “Endured to the end?” -—
So you read the Bible but don’t believe in eternal security?
How do Protestants resolve important theological differences, such as the doctrine of eternal security, since all Protestants have Bibles, and have had centuries to resolve this?
This doctrine especially exercises enormous influence over the behavior of Christians.
There are some things in [the writings of St. Paul] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.The Holy Spirit, through St. Peter, says that some Scriptures are hard to understand; you say that the meaning is always self-evident (otherwise, your practice of "never explaining what a verse means" would be senseless). I'll go with the Holy Spirit, on this one.
Read 1 Peter again in light of this Pauline statement.
Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
1 Peter 3:21
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
In baptism we enter into the death and resurrection of Christ and are cleansed of our sins, “now saving us.”
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.