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.
P1: A is related to BB is the middle term. It is properly distributed if and only if it refers to the same thing in both premises, P1 and P2. That is, it only links A to C if B really is exactly the same thing in both places.
P2: B is related to C
Therefore: A is related to C
Dogs and Cats:Which we can all agree is ludicrous, but it also has no resemblance to Daniel's sequence, as below:
P1: dog has four legs
P2: cat has four legs
P3: dog loves car rides
Therefore: cat loves car rides
Two Magisteriums:Syllogism 1 is formally correct because the middle term, "conflict with Jesus," was distributed correctly, i.e., had the same exact meaning in P1 and P2. And as all the constituent terms are also factually correct, the conclusion of Syllogism 1 must also be true. So we can use it to test further conclusions, thus:
Syllogism 1) Assert the following to be true:
P1: An infallible magisterium would not be in conflict with Jesus
P2: Israel's magisterium was in conflict with Jesus
Therefore: Israel did not have an infallible magisterium
Syllogism 2) Assert the following to be false:Obviously, we all reject the conclusion of Syllogism 2. But is Syllogism 2 formally correct? Yes it is. Once again, in Syllogism 2, there is no problem with an undistributed middle. The B term, the one that links P1 and P2, is "infallible magisterium," and it is used the same way in both premises. And because P2 is simply a restatement of the correct conclusion found in Syllogism 1, then the only place remaining in which to find an error is P1 of Syllogism 2, the idea that an infallible magisterium is necessary to know what is of God.
P1: An infallible magisterium is necessary to know what is of God
P2: Israel did not have an infallible magisterium (see A above)
Therefore: It was impossible for Israel to know if Jesus was of God
Syllogism 3) Assert the following to be false, because it uses the same faulty premise as Syllogism 2Because we already know the premise in P1 is false, we know the conclusion must be false, i.e., we know there can be means outside of Catholicism by which it is possible to know what is of God (which merits a discussion unto itself). Furthermore, looping back to the first syllogism, we see that the New Testament Ecclesia was birthed in direct conflict with the magisterium. This means that if we were forced for some reason to accept P1 as true, we would have to reject the ministry of Jesus, as it was conducted in opposition to the magisterium. But if, as is the better case, we accept the ministry of Jesus as true, it is impossible to accept P1 as true, and again we know from this that it is possible to know what is of God without the benefit of an infallible magisterium.
P1: An infallible magisterium is necessary to know what is of God
P2: Only Catholicism possesses an infallible magisterium
Therefore: Only Catholicism provides what is necessary to know what is of God
1. It cannot be demonstrated from Scripture that an infallible magisterium was ever created.Long story short, the dogs and cats analogy is NOT an analogy but a complete disconnect from Daniel's logic, and so does absolutely nothing to address or refute that logic. If you feel I have overlooked critical evidence of where the middle term fails to distribute properly, please let me know. I am fallible after all, and therefore am open to correction. :)
2. It cannot be demonstrated from Scripture that an infallible magisterium was perpetuated past the apostolic age.
3. It cannot be demonstrated from primary historical sources that any consolidated, unified magisterium, fallible or infallible, ever existed in Rome under one bishop until nearly the end of the Second Century.
4. It can be demonstrated from Scripture that even a divinely ordained magisterium can fall into catastrophic error.
5. It can be demonstrated from Scripture that even a divinely ordained magisterium can be sent reformers from God for the purpose of correcting its catastrophic error.
Evidently they don’t believe it’s “God’s word” but rather some of it is Paul’s word, some is Peter’s word etc.
Whey is that so hard for them to grasp?
The book of Matthew.
My point is that that claim is false. There is more agreement among differing Baptist denominations and other more bible based denominations by far than within the one giant umbrella of the RCC. Also that claim allows for all sorts of cults to be called Christian.
I see very much similarity in Mormonism and the RCC. In both there is a rejection of the simplicity of the bible and a more interesting, to man, doctrine is derived from some of the names and truths plagerized from the bible. The Mormon source is Joe and the RCC source is "because we said so".
"Because we said so" has far more influence than the things written in the bible.
So why do us bible thumpers care about you RCs?
"Who is made to stumble and I don't burn with indignation".
Anyone using the Lord's name should know the truth about Him and not be distracted by old wives fables about a woman who is claimed to be His mother.
Time to come into the reality dlechiante.
Hey! Send those apple limbs down here! I can use them for smoking bacon! There ain't no apple trees down here.
1 Peter 3
in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also
-—See that? The water baptism is simply a symbol of what happened spiritually -—
No.
The flood waters “symbolize” baptism, “which now saves you.” It really couldn’t be more clear.
This is the danger of Luther’s human tradition of Sola Scriptura. Because of it many Protestants have abandoned a Sacrament that “now saves you,” as we enter into the death and resurrection of our Lord, as Paul states regarding baptism, are incorporated into the Body of Christ, and are in dwelt by the Holy Spirit.
As soon as you show me the chapter and verse that says "trinity". The double standard of the Catholic that the exact word has to be in scripture for non Catholics but not for Catholics is rather disingenuous.
Did you ever have a coupon but hadn’t redeemed it yet? Did you have the coupon before you redeemed it?
We trust God to keep His promises. You should to.
Where did you get that?
>>could you please tell me why "hierarchy starting with a pope" is somehow "bad" or "unbiblical" or "not suited for the Church of Christ"<<
He is the leader of those who teach another gospel from what the apostles taught. Those that purport to lord over the people are called nicolaitans and God hates that. Besides, the closest anywhere that indicates shepherds over the flock are found in Acts 20 where Paul is talking to the elders of Ephesus, NOT Rome. And it's Paul NOT Peter.
That is correct, that while the magisterial office is valid, and instrumental in preserving Truth, yet God often raised up men from with the magisterium to reprove it, and to provide His word and preserve it, and faith.
Thus the church began upon the apostles and prophets, not the historical magisterium which they were disobedient to.
However, Rome presumes the same error of those who sat in the seat of Moses in the time of Christ, that of presuming a level of assured veracity above that which is written, teaching for doctrines the traditions and commandments of men.
RCs even presumes that she has a infallible magisterium - a novelty in Scripture - and that such is even essential to known what Scripture is and means, and disallows rebuke of her, like the Pharisees of old.
Yet both writings as well as men of God were established as being so without a infallible magisterium, and overall it was the common people who believed John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus were of God. To such they responded,
But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:49)
And thus they also demanded of Christ, an itinerant preacher as far as official magisterial sanction was concerned, by what authority He ministered, and its source. But in response the Lord invoked the ministry of another itinerant preacher, asking where his authority came. Which they would not answer, since the common people recognized what they would not.
But under the Roman model for authority and validity then the historical magisterium of the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of the promises of God of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.
And since Israel was this entity (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) over whom the Scribes and Pharisees sat, (Mt. 23:2) then under the basic Roman model then 1st c. souls should have submitted to them, and rejected those whom it did not sanction but rejected, rather than follow their own judgment in the light of Scriptural evidence.
Yet instead they followed an itinerant Preacher who reproved the magisterium by Scripture, (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.)
If Israel was punished for every prophet from Abel to Zacharias, I wonder who will catch the grief for all the prophets since Zacharias?
, God has sent prophet type preachers, and wise men, and scribes (Matthew 23:34) and true to form, some of them Rome has killed or scourged or otherwise persecuted from city to city, the righteous blood cries out for judgment (Prots also have some blood) like that of Abel, and which the elitist Roman institution shall suffer for in the day that she is abased, and she shall be abased.
But my prayer is all will come to God as souls damned for their works - not saved because of them - and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And with contrite heart cast their whole-hearted repentant faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him.
Oh what a day that will be!!!
Romans 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,
I don't know it's all right there...And it's so simple...I had no trouble reading and understanding when I first read it...But then I didn't have any preconceived notions when I started...
Try one of the conservative synods that still follow scripture. Anyone can call themselves anything the like. For the libs, I agree with you.
It IS more clear...
not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,
Saving baptism is an answer of a good conscience toward God...We then get dipped in water to show that we have a good conscience toward God...That we believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus...
It is not the water that saves us...We are saved before we hit the water...
While Noah's flesh and blood (life) were saved by a flood (God took him off the earth while He killed all living things on the earth), Noah's good conscience toward God is what saved him...And his good conscience was evident by building the ark...
The bible can be a little deeper than you might think...It's not to be read like a novel...
When you stand before Christ be sure to tell Him that you deserve salvation because you were baptised.
And if you don't have the coupon, you have nothing to redeem...
Here's our coupon:
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Any accurate theology has to include this scripture (and many more)...If you don't include it, your theology is seriously flawed...
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.