Loves to play 'dress up' as well....works well for the imposter's role
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.
Loves to play 'dress up' as well....works well for the imposter's role
The best way to prove Truth is to see how that Truth relates to the Son.
Ezekiel 46 gives us a way to test it.
New moon day, 6 work days, Sabbath
Counts to 8..
If ezekiel’s template wasn’t Truth, then the 14th day of that calendar would be anything BUT the 6th Work Day, the preparation for the Sabbath..
Funny, that is exactly what that template proves.it proves the 14th Day of every month on the Father’s calendar is the ‘6th day’...
Rome acknowledges that by having ‘good Friday’ every year regardless of passover.. because they realize the Son finished His Work on the 6th and final Work week of His 2nd week.
You cant accept that..
It messes up lots of false doctrines .
It is your ignorance that a new moon day isn’t one of His 6 work days or His 7th day Sabbath.
A fact that Rome shares...
Kindred with what Daniel says would think to change times and laws..
Unless the 4th kingdom in Daniel is not Rome..
I am not sure what your opinion is on those kingdoms on that statue in Daniel.
If the 4th is Rome, what you call ‘science fiction’is actually pprophecy being fulfilled right under your nose...
Well, don’t all the props just make him look so authentic and scholarly?
Out of a grown man, no less.
I was not contending Leo XIII was teaching dictation in s negative way, but gave you an example of using the term which i did not see CB even describing.
As a “note bene” you may want to note that Bible commentaries are not infallible teachings. You seem to note that almost in passing near the end of your post but I wanted to make that clear.
Of course they are not infallible, but which is irrelevant as the constant RC refrain about the need for the magisterium can hardly be restricted to infallible teaching, as according to at least one RC apologist they do not make up the majority of what RCs believe and practice.
Moreover, not only is what magisterial level Cath teachings fall under, subject to interpretation, including what all the infallible teachings are, but their meaning can be to varying degrees, while even official Ordinary Magisterium teaching leaves much undefined.
Thus in real life RCs much look to the interpretation and counsel of their local ordinaries, and things like the NAB commentary. The latter esp. finds a viable place, since Rome has never infallibly defined more than a few verses at best, nor has the Ordinary Magisterium provided a complete authoritative commentary on even the NT.
But her American bishops to whom the Vatican has entrusted the care of 78 million souls, approved the NAB and its notes, and in study Bible the Bible helps, both of which teach liberal revisionism as was showed (not that all the notes are wrong). Some of that
It had been succeeded by the NABRE, but i have seen some of the same type of liberal scholarship in it, from the limited access i was able to get.
He’s simply going after what he can get from the fools who believe him....just as with all cult leaders...they live very comfortable and wealthy .....so too with Rood...though he relays to his followers otherwise...
Michael John Rood and his teachings are not credible or accurate. he is not trained, certified or recognized as the Rabbi he likes to impersonate, and his “ordination” by a cult called The Way International required only minor instruction in an unaccredited TWI program.... His central teachings depart radically from the evangelical Christian faith, and several of his teachings and practices are typical among cults.
For people to even consider this mans teachings simply attests they were not grounded beforehand and simply fell into the trap he set. .....and just like many who invest their money and time into buying and learning an cult leaders teachings, so too with Roody’ followers....they’re “invested” so it comes down to cutting their losses when they leave. Therefore some will not do so for that.
Science fiction!
Deliberate misreading of the word of God is a dangerous pursuit.
Just look at Baalam!
Nothing in Ezekiel or any other prophetic writing, sets out any sabbaths. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are the sole authority on such matters. Ezekiel 46 is speaking about the already existing procedures for the keeping of the gates. It does not change anything.
Your method is called Eisegesis.
Deuteronomy 4:2 “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”
You have added your opinion to the word of God. That cannot be done without penalty. You should read what that penalty is before going further.
Do you share cb’s delusion?
Michael Rood doesn’t feed anyone any error of any kind.
Why would you falsely accuse God’s great servant in such a manner?
Those that teach only the scriptures, such as Rood, are the only safe teachers.
What you post is not found anywhere in the scriptures; especially not at the references you indicated!
No one will ever be “resurrected on the Earth.”
I cannot imagine where you got this deception; even Lindsay isn’t that crazy.
.
Make that Judah ben Samuel. Don’t know where I got that ‘Solomon’ from???
NO WHERE in John 3 does it say we need to be born a second time of the water. The second birth is of the Spirit only.
Please show your proof.
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Luke 15:4 'What man of you having a hundred sheep, and having lost one out of them, doth not leave behind the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go on after the lost one, till he may find it?
The Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament to be written in Koine Greek and those of us who are true believers understand that the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing and saying.
I was stunned that anyone would make a claim like that and still think they have credibility.
The NT was not originally written in Greek.
“Koine” is the name given to the false language that results from translating from Hebrew using the LXX as a ‘Rosetta Stone.’ Nobody ever “spoke” it, and native Greeks have complained over the centuries that it is essentially unreadable to them.
.
That in its entirety is science fiction worthy of a Michael Rood screed.
.
What is the clinical name for the intellectual disability that causes people who are unable to present a cogent argument to blame Michael Rood for their impairment?
.
.
Does the strong delusion he has sent cause your fingers to type in blue?
Do you understand strong delusion?
He promised to send it to all that desired it. Is that how to go after a lost sheep? (or is it sheep dog?)
.
The proofs of what you say are glaringly absent.
I would bet a Hershey’s chocolate that Paul spoke in Greek when he was addressing Greeks, so the foolishness of claiming the Apostles didn’t speak Greek is, well, telling. Paul was smart enough to read the Greek inscriptions on the idol pedestals and focused his audience’s attention on the one dedicated to the ‘unknown God’. He would have done that in Greek, considering his audience.
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.