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.
I didn’t think you could because it doesn’t exist and your non-answer demonstrates that.
Nonsense.
They’re just men and fallible at that.
I’m supposed to trust the private, fallible interpretations of a committee of corrupt religious leaders to guide me in my walk with God?
No thanks.....
Jesus is The Rock. So, yes, only one Rock who counts.
I read your first sentence and went no further.
Are you a catholic? They believe what you do.
Yeshua did not give any man on earth the power to commit the Holy Spirit to anything!
That is what apostleship comes from.
It is an anointing of the full power of the Holy Spirit, and it can only come from Yeshua.
Matthias might have been a wonderful disciple, but he was not an apostle.
Believe whatever you wish to believe.
I will continue to believe what God’s word PLAINLY states. Nothing more. Nothing less. And no, you could find no scripture to support your beliefs. That much is obvious.
BTW, I think it was the second sentence you were referring to, which came FROM GOD’S WORD. Are you calling God a liar?
There is no scripture teaching dispensations.
Dispensationalism is a false gospel that cuts Yehova’s indivisible word into arbitrary pieces, and denies the true gospel preached by all of Yehova’s appointed leaders from Moses to the NT apostles.
Put it far away from you and you will do well.
No man was ever given the power to ‘bind’ the Holy Spirit to any man.
Staying with your catholic reading of the word will make understanding the meat of the word quite imposible.
.
"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the DISPENSATION OF GOD which is given to me for you, TO FULFILL THE WORD OF GOD:"(Colossians 1:25).
"For I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a DISPENSATION OF THE GOSPEL IS COMMITTED UNTO ME."(1 Cor. 9:17).
Are you sure you want to continue down this road, editor?...
It amazes me how many people refuse to see the assurances we have.
Time to come into the New Testament delchiante.
Again, I appreciate your response, and I understand the objections you have raise. But the point of my response was to show that your claim of an undistributed middle in Daniel’s logic was spurious, and I believe that mater is now settled in Daniel’s favor.
And I do agree that all the terms presented need further refinement. I noted to myself as I did the analysis that a great quantity of subsidiary logic was necessarily being glossed over to prevent what I personally dread, the wall post, a post so long it does no one any good, other than to be printed and used as wall paper. :) So I did strive for an economy that provided focus for the one issue I meant to deal with.
However, as the terms come from Daniel’s original analysis (as best I could summarize them), I strongly suggest Daniel be copied into this conversation, and be provided the first opportunity to explore the terms you find controversial.
One more point, and only because it bothers me. In describing the failure of the magisterium as catastrophic, I cannot imagine what would be more catastrophic that to reject and kill the Son of God. I am sorry if you think I was angling for emotion. I write vividly because that is how I write. When I write boringly, even I get bored. But I assure you, my choice of term in that instance was conditioned by my real estimation of the objective failure of the Jewish magisterium. There are a number of them in decease who might now agree with my assessment. Objectively.
Peace,
SR
The grace of God was promised to Abraham long before Paul was born.
It is you that are on that broad road.
I’m sticking with the narrow path of Yeshua.
Bon voyage.
For those who replace the Holy Spirit with a man and a "magisterium" there will never be understanding.
And again to correct the error you seem to be spinning your wheels in.....
This passage is not a blanket order to obey the leadership of any church which claims that it alone is the one true church.
It is at the end of a discourse addressing how to handle disputes in the body.
It lays out very specifically the steps one is to go through in resolving personal conflict within the body.
Matthew 18:15-20 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.
And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
NOWHERE does Jesus command us to "listen to the church".
The comment is *IF he does not listen to the church, then......*
That is a gross misinterpretation of the passage to claim or imply that it is a standing order of Jesus to listen to the Catholic church.
The clear meaning is here for everyone to see. It's dealing with disputes among believers, not absolute authority given to *the Church*.
The grace of God was in God’s mind way before Abraham, way before Adam, even. It was hid in God from before the foundation of the world, but not made known until Paul. Prophecy and mystery, editor. A kingdom of believers and a body of believers. Law v. grace. Israel and the Gentiles. On God’s timeline. That HE chose to reveal to man gradually, not all at once. Otherwise, why would Abraham have believed God and begin to sacrifice his son? Why wouldn’t he have simply said, I believe that Christ will die for my sins, be buried and rise again the third day for my justification. Why wouldn’t Moses say the same thing? And David? And Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? And, by the way, Christ Himself, before He died on the cross? What did Christ tell His apostles (Peter and the 11) to preach? The gospel of the kingdom. Do you know what that is and where it is found?
I understand. You denied that dispensation was talked about in the Bible. I showed you where it most certainly WAS talked about. It’s not about coming up with some off-the-wall doctrines and beliefs, it’s about reading God’s word, RIGHTLY DIVIDED, just as He tells us. Adding nothing, taking away nothing, just reading it as plainly as it is given.
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.