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.
Isn't that the truth...
Unless you think there are contradictions in scripture it's all present. Your example of 1 Corinthians 1:18 doesn't work the way you say when looked at in the Greek. There are still people "being saved" today as they were "being saved" back then.
Luke 13:23 And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them,
That "being saved" phrase doesn't mean an ongoing process for an individual but when the Gospel is preached many believe and in that way are "being saved".
I suppose if you refuse the guarantee of the Holy Spirit you would be right.
1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
Ephesians 2:8 for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you -- of God the gift,
Ephesians 1:13 in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth -- the good news of your salvation -- in whom also having believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise,
.
The promise of Yehova is to save us (raise us up)on the day of trumpets if we endure to the end.
We can count on him, but the question with men always is can we count on ourselves?
With so many believing that doing the will of the Father is not required, the outlook is not good.
.
Dispensation is simply a different word for "administration". God did indeed have different ways He administered or managed things.
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Ephesians 3:9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
The Old Testament was the administration (dispensation) of law and the New Testament is the administration (dispensation) of grace. And don't try to put those under grace back under the law.
GMTA!
Rood doesn’t give you much scripture to support does he? And when he does he calls a woman fire!
LOL! Yep :)
.
I don’t need any support, but I have given you and the rest of the deniers plenty of scripture support to look away from.
As long as the word of God is on my side, I’m good.
.
I am in the new testament..
Very blessed and thankful to shed Antichrist Rome and their counterfeits..
False Christs would come.. how shocked I was to realize the roman Jesus was a false Christ.
A counterfeit not by word or deed just like a counterfeit $20 bill will look and feel like the real genuine money.
Only way to tell genuine from the counterfeit is to study the genuine.
And that study was found in that pesky old testament.. confirmed in the new testament.
And a real uncovering in the last book of the Bible where we learn much..
Hold Rome up to the light and you will see right through them.. and realize either they have created another Jesus or have created the Jesus for all Christendom..
Don’t be fooled. Rome knows the Torah. They wouldnt have January 1st or February 2nd as circumcision or presentation in the temple feasts on those days if they didn’t need December 25 to fit some Torah like template..
If we didnt have warnings of false Christs, false teachers, false prophets, other Jesuses or other gospels or Satan deceiving the whole world in the new testament, we wouldnt have much to test. Or to prove all things..
I have done my study of Rome.. started innocently enough with catholic handing me rosary beads and an instruction booklet.
And that Mary is a liar on the testimony of the old And new testament.
But that liar points to Jesus.
Tough to square a liar pointing to Truth when scripture says just the opposite..
Either catholics have another Jesus or they don’t..
My testing has led me to see plainly they have created another Jesus. If faith in a phony is saving faith, then it doesn’t matter what we debate because lots of Christians don’t see Rome as having another Jesus.
But it’s why Rome has subtle influence on the religion of Christianity. And if one believes , like I do, that Rome is one of Satan’s vessels, then Christianity has been played...
And it would explain thousands of denominations that all accept the same false premise..
The false premise that Rome has any Truth or claim to Truth whatsoever.
I know my opinion is a minority opinion.. I am okay with being outside of the Babylonian religions of Islam, Judaism and Christianity..
It clumps the protestants in with her mother.. and that is unpopular..
The comment is *IF he does not listen to the church, then......*
...treat him as a pagan or tax collector."
I don't see a significant distinction.
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.
Jesus could have told his followers to take disputes to Him while He was still on earth, but he gave that Authority to His Church.
He didn't tell His followers to take their disputes to the Scriptures, or to Himself.
He told His followers to take their disputes to His Church.
Ponder that for a moment.
The clear meaning is here for everyone to see. It's dealing with disputes among believers, not absolute authority given to *the Church*.
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector."
What about that does not sound like absolute authority?
The following verse seals this interpretation:
"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."
The power to "bind and loose" had a strict and established meaning in Judaism.
Binding and loosing is an originally Jewish phrase which appears in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage to bind and to loose mean simply to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority.--Wikipedia
The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).
--Jewish Encyclopedia
Maybe it's:
Seat of Moses/Pharisaical authority to bind and loose
v.
Chair of Peter/Council/papal authority to bind and loose.
The former being a type for the latter.
BTW, I'm enjoying your posts here. Very well thought out.
Thanks once again for your insight bro.
So when Paul says ‘this dispensation’ he’s just mistaken, is that your position as you contradict him?
Yeah, it says...we were given and charged with the responsibility to interpret, copy, authenticate, protect, scripture and in so doing, when someone decides on his own to change it....we toss his butt out of the true church.....either you believe and follow the truth or you become a protestor....see how that works???
God doesn't NEED anything....however, He does USE mankind to spread and further enhance His word...
Considering the number of your post.....take 2
Oh good grief Charlie Brown....... .
I do read the prophets....and No, my theories aren't... .
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.