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.
The God Almighty...who designed everything to function and operate, from the instincts in animals, to the DNA in man, to our entire solar system......who came to earth and embodied a wee baby...endured the cross, died and rose for us.....NEEDS a group of power seeking old men to tell people what his word says?
Nah.
John 20:30-31 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."
Okay... I think I’ve slipped into the Twilight Zone! Editor-surveyor and I agree on the vast majority of what he’s saying in response to CynicalBear, et al...
I think I need an aspirin... :)
Hm. So if I were to say, “I think you must be thinking [x]”, you’d not object?
(1) There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: (2)The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.(3) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(4) Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Call it 'interpreting' if you wish, but it is clear that the verses 5 and 6 belong together as Jesus answered Nic's question. Abortion in our age is cutting off untold millions from being born of water so they can be born of the Spirit. A sure indication that we are in the great falling away.
Craftier folks than you have tried to argue that a man is not born , only babies are born of water, so the 'water' reference cannot be in relation to the water of birth. But you should note, if you decide to take that path, that Jesus answers Nicodemus on the level of reasoning Nicodemus brought to the discussion. Jesus often used this tactic when those who challenged Him tried to trip Him up, as no doubt you have discovered in reading the Four Gospels. Jesus started His message for Nicodemus telling Nic A MAN must be born again. Nic shot back his human reasoning satanically arranged to refute the Word of God. So Jesus came right back at Nic with his own illogical path and brought him to a new way of looking at The Gospel. [See 1 Cor 3:19]
BTW, if you choose to ttrey the ‘water baptism makes cleansing for the Holy Spirit’, you would have to deal with the scene at Cornelius’s home when Peter speaks, the Holy Spirit enters the believers and then Peter says ‘can anyone hold back baptism, seeing as how God has come into them as into we believing Jews’? The water dipping did not precede the indwelling, for God cleanses the dead human spirit with the Blood of Christ and then the presence of God indwells the believer, as is the fashion of the sprinkling of the Mercy Seat before God comes into the temple.
"Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19:28).
Who was Christ speaking to? The twelve Apostles. (In Acts, when Judas is replaced by Matthias, Matthias becomes the twelfth apostle who will sit upon a throne judging the twelve tribes of Israel).
Where does Paul sit in this arrangement? He too was an Apostle, personally commissioned by Christ, and yet, there seems to be no throne for him during the millennial reign. If, as you say, all the apostles taught and were taught the same things, uh, just where will Paul be? Serving the drinks and food?
Obviously, he won't be on one of those thrones, Because he is not one of the twelve that will judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Obviously, because his commission was not the same as the twelve. It is DIFFERENT. As in, NOT THE SAME. If this is different, then, obviously, God differentiates according to His will. You may not like it, but it's HIS plan, not yours.
What do you think a covenant is?
Covenant
n.noun
1.) A binding agreement; a compact.
2.) A condition in a contract such as a deed or lease, nonperformance or violation of which gives rise to a cause of action for breach.
3.) A contract.
4.) In the Bible, a divine promise establishing or modifying God's relationship to humanity or to a particular group.
5.) One of the agreements supported by a Covenanter.
v.verb
1.) To promise by a covenant.
2.) To enter into a covenant.
src
[...] interspersed with historical accounts, poetry, apocalyptic literature, prophecies, and loads of other things. Are you quite serious, trying to reduce the Bible to nothing more than a "series of contracts"?
Yes, that is precisely what it is, in a legal sense - a series of contracts with supporting documents.
Um... FRiend... this is sounding more confused by the minute. A contract, so called, is not binding unless one signs it.
No, technically, it is binding upon the ones WHO sign it (or the verbal equivalent).
Examples:
If we agree I owe you $100 and I sign an IOU, You may collect upon that signed document in the court, without having signed it yourself.
Several of the contracts are declaratory or promissory... An IOU: Agreement between the parties is incidental... The Adamic, Edenic, Noahdic Aaronic, and Davidic, all declaratory, and binding only upon YHWH.
Several are Life and Death - sealed in blood (blood oaths, the offender must die):
the Abrahamic - Walking through the halves: Only YHWH walked through the halves. Abraham was asleep. Binding only upon YHWH
the Mosaic (Law clause) - Sealed in the sprinkling of blood, agreed to by Israel and broken... But YHWH has promised to fulfill it in their favor anyway: Now binding only upon YHWH.
The Messianic (Redeemer clause) - Sealed in the sprinkling of Yeshua's blood (not ours) - Gentiles added in - It is Yeshua's to do with as he wishes, again binding upon YHWH.
Several are marriage ketubahs (contracts): signed, and sealed by wine:
Main Israeli (Mosaic Bride clause) - still in effect through Judah (until death of Yeshua?).
Judaic (Mosaic Bride clause - Amended after Judah/Israel split) - still in effect. Judah has never been divorced (but may now have been widowed). Now binding ??
Ephraimic (Mosaic Bride clause - Amended after Judah/Israel split) - Divorced: But YHWH has promised to take her back, against Torah prohibition. Now binding only upon YHWH
Messianic (Bride clause) - After death of Yeshua, both Judah and Ephraim are free to remarry - Binding of the two sticks, eligibility of return for Ephraim. Israel is once again, one wife.
Two are Wills (declaratory witnessed oath)
Israel's Tribal Paternal Inheritance - Oath is prophetic, YHWH is the Testator.
Messianic (Inheritance clause) - Yeshua is the Testator.
*BOTH require the death of the Testator to be discharged. (that's what wills do)*
If we were (hypothetically) "not signers" of the contract, then we would not be bound by it. What, exactly, are you trying to say, here?
The blood oaths are not 'signed' by you - Hence Grace. Technically, what you have 'signed, or agreed to, are in three aspects:
Adoption into Israel.
A Discipleship to a Rabbi. You are a Talmidi, joined to his assembly of Talmidim, bound to walk in His footsteps.
A Bridal Ketubah. You are betrothed.
It would be in your interest to understand how these things work.
[roamer_1:] Then y'all better get back to keeping Torah - Every bit of it.
Er... could you please explain WHY, given that Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant completely [...]
Tell me how the Fall Feasts have been fulfilled. Tell me how the Inheritance has been discharged... Tell me how the promises to Ephraim are fulfilled. It is not 'all fulfilled' (not even mentioning the prophets).
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
'Destroy' and 'Fulfill' are rabbinic terms... Maybe you should know what they mean.
[...]and dispensed us from the non--core-moral Mitzvot of the OT [...]
There is no such thing. The Mitzvot cannot be divided. Cannot be added to, nor taken from. Rather, it is argued, Torah cannot be divided. To keep Torah is to Keep Torah.
Your statement doesn't logically follow from anything I said, at all.
Well, if it is not by Grace alone, your salvation is at least in part necessarily works. 'Works' is shortahand for 'Works of the Law' or 'Works of Torah'. 'Works' IS keeping Torah.
Look up sophistry or cognitive dissonance when you have a chance, as you either or have resorted to misconstruing the argument or you have have succeeded in misunderstanding it.
No, it does not follow that since the Sanhedrin was an organized authority but was wrong, then Catholic Church must be wrong since it is an organized hierarchy, which is what you conveniently construed the argument to be.
Instead, it does follow that if an infallible magisterium is essential for the discernment of what is of God, then since then it is contrary to how the NT church began, as there was no infallible magisterium to tell them what was Scripture or the Messiah.
And in fact it began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, while under the Catholic model the historical magisterium and steward of Scripture dissent is disallowed.
Thus the shared similarity of being an organized authority does not make the RC mag. wrong, but the very premise that ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential is the issue, due to the posters questions. Which should have been obvious.
If want to compare reasons for the Rc mag. being infallible versus the OT mag then go ahead.
lol! AMEN, MHGinTN, AMEN!
On these threads, everytime I see a post by you, or daniel1212, or Elsie, or Cynical Bear, or one or two others that have skipped the shortterm memory of this old man, I pause to digest a savory mental meal of Bible study. Thanks for the work you do.
You have failed again to in any way establish any falsehood in any post I’ve made to you.
You do have one falsehood in your post. Matthias was never appointed by Yeshua as an apostle; that was a disobedient act by men. Apostles can only be selected by Yeshua, although I fail to see what point you are attempting to make.
Your plan is not God’s plan, no matter how much you may desire it to be. You appear to have some indiscernable argument with Paul, without whom most of the NT writings would not exist, but what?
Perhaps some clarification would help?
How does any of this rambling rant relate to my post #517 to which you replied?
.
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.