Are you infallible?

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.

Did Jesus say that in His Father's House are many mansions?

Did Jesus say that He goes to prepare a place for you at His Father's House and that He will come to take you there so where He is you maybe also? [John 14: 1-3}

Does the seventieth week of Daniel end with the return of Jesus to the Earth (not to the air but to the Earth)? [Daniel 9 and Rev 19]

Did Paul write that The Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven and the dead in Christ then we who are alive will be caught up together in the clouds, to meet the Lord IN THE AIR? [1Thess 4:13 - 17]

Can you mind understand that there is a difference in the dead resurrected in 1Thess 4 and the dead resurrected in Rev19, that 1Thess speaks of a snatching away to The Father's House, but in Rev19 the resurrected are resurrected ON EARTH to live and have children?

Did Jesus err when He told His Disciples that He goes to prepare a place IN HEAVEN, in His Father's House, for them and that He will come and take them (and us) there to be with Him? [John 14: 1 -3]

The Bible clearly speaks of several raptures, for there are three in Heaven right now with glorified bodies: Jesus, Elijah, and Enoch. Those raptured in 1 Thess 4 will be transformed into glorified bodies (see 1 Cor 15: 51 - 57). Following the Great White Throne seen in Revelations, glorified bodies will be given to whom, if those raptured in 1 Thess 4 have already gotten glorified bodies? And Enoch and Elijah receive glorifed bodies when God stands them back up during the Tribulation and returns them to Heaven?

God is not a God of confusion. He has a way for us to comprehend His Word, and that is by seeing whom the scripture addresses, for what purpose to those addressed, and for what times these things are given. If you reject the arranging of scripture as God has done it, you create only a confusion of passages you must try to shoehorn into all being for everybody for any time. That is confusion, and God is not the author of such confusion over His guide book for humanity.

Now here's a little surprise, just for you, es:

In 1217 a Jewish rabbi, Judah ben Solomon, had a vision from Elijah who is with the Lord. In the Rabbi's vision, Elijah explained what was to happen to Jerusalem as laid out in Jubilee year increments. The first segment was six Jubilees until Jerusalem would be captured and under the control of the Turks. In 1517 the Turks took Jerusalem, 300 years AFTER the Rabbi's prophecy from Elijah.
The next segment of time for Jerusalem would last eight Jubilee years, or 400 years. The Turks held Jerusalem for 400 years until the British took it from them in 1917 without a shot fired in war, due to Gen Allenby flying over the city in a British plane which the Islamic Turks took to be 'allah' (the name Allenby was mistranslated as allah) and thus the plane a sign that allah was sending them out, back to Turkey.
The next time for Jerusalem would be one jubilee Year and the Jews would rule Jerusalem. In 1967 the six days war resulted in the Jewish state taking control of Jerusalem.
The next time for Jerusalem was prophesied to be one Jubilee year for a seven year Peace treaty to be signed in Jerusalem and the people of Israel shouting peace and safety, but the treaty will be destroyed in 42 months and war reigns down upon Jerusalem.
That prophecy was written down in 1217. It has happened just as Elijah told the Rabbi for each time segment, to the day. That means the scene in 1 Thess 4 can happen at any moment because 2017 is the time assigned for the seven year treaty prophesied in Daniel 9, and we will be with the Lord in the Father's House when that great deception arrives and runs through the seven years of the Tribulation. THEN when He returns to the Earth, to set foot on the Earth, we will be with him in our glorified bodies we have been enjoying in Heaven, in the Father's House.
Now here is one last little clue, regarding The Father's House. In the middle east in The times when Jesus walked the Earth, the Jewish family had a central home with often a wall encircling it, not often a high wall, just something to keep herding animals away from the doors. When a son became betrothed to a wife, he went to his father's compound and built on his home to which he would bring his bride after the betrothal period. The son would go to the home of the bride and call her out to meet his wedding entourage and travel back to his father's compound for the wedding celebration. When he called his bride out, he did not enter the bride's father's house, he would call her out to him.

Wherefore comfort one another with these sayings, wrote Paul to the grieving Thessalonians. [1Thess4:18]

.
>> “Does the seventieth week of Daniel end with the return of Jesus to the Earth (not to the air but to the Earth)?” <<

.
15 days exactly after he comes “in the cloud with his mighty angels” to gather his assembly, at the end of the tribulation, to be exact.

>> “Can you mind understand that there is a difference in the dead resurrected in 1Thess 4 and the dead resurrected in Rev19, that 1Thess speaks of a snatching away to The Father’s House, but in Rev19 the resurrected are resurrected ON EARTH to live and have children?” <<

That in its entirety is science fiction worthy of a Hal Lindsey novel!

Where do people get this nonsense?

Yehova’s plan is laid out to the minute in his feasts, which he gave us for our edification. He has not kept us in the dark, we are supposed to be children of light, but when one runs around so severely blindfolded the light remains on the coffee table unopened.

“Resurrect to have children?”

Such nonsense defies every verse in the Bible written about our post-resurrection existence.

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.