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.
Wake up CB!
The Ephesians were a solid, spiritual congregation, in whom Paul had every reason to have the confidence his words to them revealed.
Paul’s confidence in the Ephesians spiritual grounding had nothing to do with the world at large, and cannot be imputed thereto.
.
So why do priests claim to change it into something else?
Since you asked: it's impossible to understand because He IS giving such infallibility to you if what you say is correct! You just don't want to admit that you are claiming the charism of infallibility for yourself because you know what that would necessarily imply.
It's like you're saying, "The Holy Spirit doesn't give me HIS infallibility He just teaches me the correct Scriptural meaning". The problem with that is, if you don't acknowledge that that's the very definition of the charism of infallibility (actually it's a stronger meaning than even the Pope claims but I digress) then you are saying that the way He "teaches" you is via some disembodied voice either audible or inside your head that dictates to you the "proper" meaning of Scripture. This can be your only meaning since you clearly reject being taught by "fallible men".
I'm sorry to be so blunt now but this is the truth: That (the way He "teaches" you is via some disembodied voice either audible or inside your head that dictates to you) is the definition of self-deception! Wake up before it's too late.
A distinction lost on Catholics.
Wow! So you have assigned to yourself the infallibility of determining who is sincere and who is not!! What an accomplishment! Have you notified God of your decisions?
Wow! What a bible study, Brother! Thank you for posting that extensive missive. You’ve regaled my soul this morning.
So you are claiming that it was only the Ephesians who received the guarantee of the Holy Spirit and anyone else who receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit it's not as a guarantee? I'm sure you can justify the view with scripture. I would like to see that scripture.
1. Is what Paul wrote infallible?
2. Was Paul thereby to be considered infallible?
The letters he wrote that are in Scripture now are infallible yes.
2. Was Paul thereby to be considered infallible?
When he wrote the letters that are now Scripture? Yes. Was he always infallible for his entire life? No.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Timothy 3:16 every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness,
Lets get to that, but first let is be established that inspiration is not to be confused with the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (unless you believe infallible decrees are inspired as Scripture is).
But since nobody is infallible, how do you know that's really true? How do you know the Apostle John really "explicitly wrote" it, anyway? How do you know there was an "Apostle John"? How do you "know" what "to know" means?
Thus your premise is that ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential for the discernment of what is of God, correct?
But which premise invalidates the NT church, as it began with souls having rightly discerned both men and writings as being of God, and following an itinerant Preacher whom the historical magisterium/stewards of Scripture rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Thus under the Roman model your operate out of then you have nuked the church.
Because Christ told us so.
He did NO SUCH THING! Perpetual ensured infallibility of office as per Rome was never seen in Scripture or was necessary, and instead RCs must extrapolate it out of fallacious reasoning.
There can only be one Truth. But the men of the Protestant ‘reformation’ – breaking away after 1,500 years from the Church Christ established – discovered a ‘new’ truth and introduced false teachings.
Wrong, as instead Rome had largely progressively supplanted the the most essential Truth as well as others with her own accretions of traditions, including her novel unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, under which Scripture, history and tradition infallibly means what she says they do.
..."To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position.
“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear.
"Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable" (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, , 46-49).
Thus in response to which, no less a papist than Manning asserted,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences. For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth. Instead,
...in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent." — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.”
“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
However, nowhere in Scripture is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility seen or promised for discernment and preservation of Truth. Nor is it essential for this, or for authority. The OT magisterium certainly had authority, as do civil rulers today, and to which general obedience is enjoined.
And while unity is most easily attained under the model of ensured magisterial veracity, this is cutic and no Scriptural. In contrast, the limited unity of the NT church was under manifest apostles of God, who could claim that they were proving themselves as the ministers of God, in contrast to "false apostles" which Scripture warns of, and Rome pseudo apostles fail of both the requirements (Acts 1:21,22, 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:12) and attestation of Biblical apostles, (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12) while calling for an even greater degree of submission.
But in contrast to the Roman model of authority and unity, in which the historical stewards of Scripture are the infallible authorities on Revelation and all dissent can be disallowed, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Paul warned us about those introducing false teachings,
And Paul's teaching, both oral and written to which he enjoined obedience, was established upon said Scriptural substantiation, (Acts 17:2; 28:23; Rm. 15:19) which in contrast to the accretion of errors under Rome, in critical and overall contrast to the NT church. Which church, as manifested in Scripture,
1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.
3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)
5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.
15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).
17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.
“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
I have to marvel at the kind of disconnect from reality RCs evidence when they post such things as applied to Rome. No only was this a prayer for a real church, but whatever unity Rome has is limited and largely on paper, which does not constitute the evidence of what they really believe, which Scripturally is shown by what one does and effects. (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20)
And Catholicism, exists in sects and schisms, with a variant variety of beliefs finding a home under her umbrella, with Rome counting and treating as members even publicly know proabortion/sodomy/Muslim souls.
And under the unifying modern magisterium, as one poster wryly commented,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
Nor had the RC model shown itself the solution prior to the Reformation:
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. "It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/) You could easily read the above as “One of you says, "I follow Luther"; another, "I follow Calvin"; another, "I follow Wesley"; still another, "I follow Christ." And you could easily read the above as “One of you says, "I follow Francis," another, "I follow Burke," another, "I follow Pius V"; still another, "I follow Mary," but as the the above, these do not mean that all such hold to a decidedly different basic faith. Christians cannot be “perfectly united in mind and thought” when they have different beliefs on, say, the necessity of water baptism, while others believe “This is my Body” means “This is a cookie” The fruit of Rome certainly does, including those who hold to the absolute necessity of water baptism, and submission to the pope, versus allowing for baptism of desire, even that of souls ignorant of Christ. But Peter made it clear that the washing of regeneration before baptism was included under being saved by the grace of God. (Acts 10:43-48; 15:7-10) Meanwhile, while RCs hold variant views on the Eucharist, unity in error in nothing to be boasted of, and the manifest reality is that only the metaphorical view is (easily) consistent with the rest of Scripture . There can be only one ‘Truth’ – Christ is THE way, THE truth, THE life. One, not many. Indeed, and while the convenient RC one-size-fits-all definition of Protestant, which is so broad that you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 thru it, the evidence is that those who hold most strongly to the most primary distinctive of the Reformation, that of the authority of Scripture as the wholly infallible and accurate word of God, are far more unified in conservative values and core beliefs overall in contrast to the overall fruit of Rome. And in contrast to Rome, such do believe in There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:4-6) One body: Born again evangelicals (BAEs) believe in the one body of Christ, that being the only one true church since it alone 100% consists of true believers, though they visibly manifest their faith in the world, and in visible churches - as do tares therein. One Spirit: BAEs believe in the one Spirit, by which they are spiritually baptized into the one body of Christ. One hope of your calling: BAEs believe the Spirit is the pledge of their one hope of calling, that of forever being with the Lord once absent from the body or at His return, whatever comes first, and being conformed to Him. In contrast to their next postmortem event being that of "purifying torments" in purgatory. and by faith in the one Lord Jesus, making them children of the one God and Father, One Lord: BAEs believe in the one Lord Jesus to save them, nor Mary as some Caths pray, and have earnestly contended for the Deity of Christ , and more actively against those who deny them. One faith: BAEs believe the one essential faith of the gospel, that of faith in risen Lord Jesus to save them as contrite damned+destitute sinners who can only trust to be justified on Christ's account, not obtaining justification on account of their holiness as per Rome, though one is justified as being a true believer in the light of their obedience. . One baptism: BAEs believe in one baptism in identification with the Lord, not any other. One God and Father: BAEs believe that the one basic gospel faith in the one Lord Jesus Christ makes them children of the one God and Father, with no mention of a Heavenly Mother. Who is above all, and through all, and in you all: BAEs believe all true believers are born of the Spirit and thus Christ dwell in them, and thus realize a unique and even spontaneous essential fellowship of the Spirit, due to a shared regeneration with its profound changes in heart and life. Which transcends denominational lines, but which is rarely realized when wee meet RCs, as few of them even know of such a day of salvation. And what if you have a disagreement with a brother as to what is ‘The Truth?’ Where do you go to resolve your issue? Scripture tells us what to do: Under Rome, the local ordinary/hierarchs are likely to be liberal or can disagree with another, and which interpret magisterial teaching. Thus one says liberal pols can receive the Eucharist and another disagrees. As for getting an answer from the Vatican, while impenitent Ted Kennedy received a nice letter from the pope before his death, the average laymen has little hope of that. And liberal Caths are far more likely to feel at home in a Cath church than those in evangelical churches. And in which a dispute can be judged by locals and then higher ups if necessary. Westminster affirms. I. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
However, outside certain core truths, both RCs and evangelical have varying amounts of freedom to interpret Scripture. .' 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. Which, along with every other attempt of yours, does not translate into an infallible mag,. nor is this even referring to doctrinal judgments, though the principal supports that. This was not new, but flows from the OT in which the mag. judged cases, disobedience to which could be a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13) And as seen above, the magisterial office is supported under SS. “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 Yes, the favorite vain recourse of RCs, as if this supports anything more than the church supporting the Truth, not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, with the church being supreme over Scripture, which RCs imagine this text means.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Thanks. You are a very good teacher. Keep up the good work.
**Thus your premise is that ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential for the discernment of what is of God, correct?**
And yet, right here on FR, we see Roman Catholics interpreting the Magisterium in multiple ways.
Which one of them is right or wrong? How are we to know?
This is a common mis-conception. The human authors of Scripture were indeed true authors in the sense that they wrote what they wished to write. The Holy Spirit didn’t use them as some secretary, dictating to them what He wanted written.
“God breathed” indicates the true source of “inspiration” (God). It doesn’t necessarily mean that Scripture is “God’s Dictation”.
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.