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.
A rose; by any other name; would be called something else.
Argument 1 Premise 1: God exists. Premise 2: God is omnipotent. Premise 3: The Holy Scriptures teach the truth. Premise 4: The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today. Conclusion: God does not want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly (or He does want the truth to be known but has not provided the means - an impossibility give premise 2)
Since his premise is faulty, so is his conclusion.
Premise 4: The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today.
That is not the claim, consistent with how the apologist himself allows infallible truth to be defined, that "there are plenty of historical, mathematical, and scientific facts which are beyond speculation."
The fact is that even pagans can speak infallible Truth, such as the one Paul quoted in Acts 17. Thus the SS evangelical certainly can believe that one can interpret Scripture infallibly, but not as possessing ensured formulaic infallibility, so that whatever he has or ever will speak according to a certain scope and subject-based formula is and will be infallible/without error.
And as souls knew of a Truth that certain men and writings were of God before there ever was a magisterium which uniquely claimed infallibility, (Dan. 2:47; Jn. 6:14; 7:40; 1Co. 14:25) and that such knowing of a Truth is the only definition of souls infallibly knowing Truth, then we can present this as:
Premise 1: God exists.
Premise 2: God is omnipotent.
Premise 3: The Holy Scriptures teach the truth.
Premise 4: Souls knew of a Truth that certain men and writings were of God before there ever was a magisterium which uniquely claimed infallibility.
Premise 5: such knowing of a Truth is the only definition of souls infallibly knowing Truth in Scripture.
Conclusion: God does want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly, but ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is not essential for this.
If indeed the Gospel is God’s inspired, infallible Word, then what good is it if Christians cannot be certain that they are indeed hearing the true Gospel preached? If God did not make sufficient provision for the Gospel message to be declared infallibly, then God would not be God, He would be a sadist.
Which perverse Roman reasoning is what is repeated elsewhere and exposed as such. For if indeed an infallible magisterium is essential to know if they are indeed hearing the true Gospel preached, then it also must apply to the Scriptures upon which the gospel is based. "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures.." "...now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets..." (Rm. 1:2; 16:26
But since God did not provide one, then according to this logic He makes God to be a sadist.
However, since both men and writings of God were always discerned and established as being so ling before there was a church which presumed she was essential for this. And as a perpetual IM was never essential to provide and preserve faith in Scripture, then the student of Scripture can know of a Truth that Rome is presuming to think of men above that which is written. (1Co. 4:6)
Moreover, the RC here admits what many RCs try to hide, that since certainty that they are indeed hearing the true Gospel preached rests upon the (unScriptural) premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), then faithful RCs are not as seek to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by acting like a noble Berean, (Acts 17:11) but is to implicitly trust that his church cannot err. Which is cultic, not Christian.
Let's be precise that you were ignorant of the argument i was responding to, which premise was refuted.
Let's be precise in our terminology. What the Catholic Church is indeed claiming is that, to discover ALL of the revelation God has revealed to mankind, all of it, not just a portion, then it is NOW necessary to have an infallible magisterium. That the claim for the necessity of the infallible magisterium (IM) only refers to all of Divine revelation is simply your interpretation of Dulles, whereas the CE includes needing faith in the instruments of revelation in order to believe in the Bible.
Dulles goes in to say, “By its unceasing vigilance the Magisterium preserves the Scriptures as a sacred deposit and supervises editions, translations, and commentaries”
Which the maligned (much by RCs) NAB is an example of!
, then it is NOW necessary to have an infallible magisterium.
But what would that be essential now? If God could provide and preserve most of Scripture itself and faith without an IM, then why is it necessary now. And note the God has always been leading His own progressively into Truth, which will not culminate in this life. (1Co. 13:10-12; 1Jn. 3:2)
is indeed possible for God to have: A. Revealed Himself to whomever He chose in the OT, to fulfill his plan of Salvation for mankind, through mankind. But doing so apart from the magisterium, those who sat in the seat of Moses, was not an exception, but the norm, as God spoke by prophets who were often rejected by those who sat in power, and which the common people discerned even when the mag. did not. And which is how the NT church began. Thus why would not only a magisterium be essential to know what is God, but an IM?
In the OT, the function of the magisterium was primarily judicial, besides being didactic, but God never has need for an IM, as He knew how to raise up men from without the magisterium to reprove it. And thus the church began in dissent from the historical magisterium, contrary to the RC model, being was built upon an itinerant preachers, Jesus of Nazareth, the apostles and the prophets, men whom the magisterium rejected.
B. While He was here on Earth, in the flesh, obviously an "infallible magisterium" was NOT required since He was here. He was the source of infallibility then, since He is, even just by definition "infallible"
And yet He 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.)
And the Lord being in Heaven, Scripture is the Only transcendent immutable comprehensive material body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God, which "infallible" papal teaching is not, and lacks the power of the wholly inspired word of God. (Heb. 4:12)
C. Now that He has ascended to heaven, and has revealed all there is to reveal to mankind (there is no more revelation to receive, the faith was "deposited" with the Apostles at Pentecost), *now* there exists a need for a magisterium to "know all things there is to know" about God, and thus we have statements like Cardinal Dulles'.
While more can be revealed when Christ returns, that Rome does not presume to reveal more things in this life is misleading, as she can claim to "remember" a specific story that is not recorded in Scripture and lacks even early evidence , and which her scholars were opposed to as making it doctrine, and make it binding upon all Christians.
She can claim this is not new under the premise that it was always believed by all everywhere, and was true, despite it being absent from Scripture and lacking early evidence or being one tradition among others, with the veracity of which actually resting upon the premise of her own ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
For Rome has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”
Yet not only is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility unknown in Scripture, and contrary to how souls believed the Truth and the church began, but it remains unnecessary despite your assertions otherwise, and is actually what many cults like the Mormons effectively work out of.
I hope this clarifies things.
Indeed i do.
First of all, it's "unscriptural" in your opinion. You (among others) have been provided ample Scriptural evidence for the establishment of a visible Church government.
Wrong, wrong wrong! Visible Church government, which Westminster affirms, is not that of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. Propaganda posted on behalf of it has been refuted time and time again by God's grace, leading to the silence of those who tried to defend it.
You have simply rejected it, claiming it's unscriptural, because it contradicts Scripture elsewhere. Again, in your opinion.
Which is just what souls could say to Scripturally substantiated preaching in the NT. And it remains than an IM did not exist nor was necessary for both men and writings to be discerned and established as being so. But the RC recourse is to asserting that since Rome gave us the Bible, then we need to submit to her. Which logic is an argument against Rome.
The first part of your request (namely "provide...the basis for the NOVEL...premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility...", emphasis added) is reasonable however, and that basis is given, I believe, in post 34. I have not seen anyone refute the logic there in this thread. If you would like to have a go at it feel free.
I never saw the post, but quite readily i can see that since his premise is faulty, so is his conclusion. See here .
Our Lord didn't build the Church upon Peter. He built it upon that which God the Father provided. Reread Matt
Mat 16:17-19 (17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Now compare this to what happens when Peter begins to rebuke Christ. Same event recorded in Mark:
Mar 8:29-33 (29) And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. (30) And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. (31) And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. (32) And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. (33) But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
Note what is happening here. Christ isn't building His Church upon Satan, but upon that which is provided by God the Father. While a believer remains in fellowship, the Church grows through faith in Christ. When distracted from glorifying Christ, we lapse into our knowledge of good and evil, resulting is our volition shifting its focus from Christ to anything but Him and we no longer are performing the Plan of God.
The fact is that even pagans can speak infallible Truth, such as the one Paul quoted in Acts 17. Thus the SS evangelical certainly can believe that one can interpret Scripture infallibly, but not as possessing ensured formulaic infallibility, so that whatever he has or ever will speak according to a certain scope and subject-based formula is and will be infallible/without error.
And as souls knew of a Truth that certain men and writings were of God before there ever was a magisterium which uniquely claimed infallibility, (Dan. 2:47; Jn. 6:14; 7:40; 1Co. 14:25) and that such knowing of a Truth is the only definition of souls infallibly knowing Truth, then we can present this as:
The fact you seem to be missing or ignoring is that in all the instances you cited where "souls knew of a Truth that certain men and writings were of God" were due to either divine intervention and/or the intervention of Jesus (cf Dan 2:47, Jn. 6:14; 7:40; 1Co. 14:25) or by the instruction and guidance of St. Paul (Acts 17:16 onward). You'll note in all these instances, the people in question don't come to their revelatory moments via reading the Scriptures. They come to greater knowledge of God via instruction, either from divine revelation, from Jesus, or from St. Paul.
Let's pause and reflect on that for a moment: All the cases you cited are not of anyone "studying" the Scriptures. They are either divine intervention, or acts of teaching.
I suppose one could bring up the case of the Bereans earlier in the chapter of Acts (17) but this is just another example of teaching. This is teaching coupled with Scripture to be certain, but St. Paul didn't just throw a copy of the Scriptures at the Bereans and leave them alone. They studied it, with his help.
Now you may disagree at this moment, but that's your disagreement based on your opinion. We've been down this road you and I, so I won't belabor it. I'll leave it to any objective dispassionate lurker to decide for himself, if you are just giving your opinion and claiming it's "Scripture" or if you are really "just giving Scripture" in reply.
Overall, the main point is that you haven't been able to substantiate a reason to substitute the original Premise 4 for your own. Again, no one disagrees that before Christ, there was no Magisterium. At least not one that could be said to be "infallible". I already said before, that the people in the OT who came to a greater knowledge of God did so via HIS help, not through any "power" or "magisterium".
God's plan is not to leave us dependent upon such moments, such intervention on His part. This is actually the reason for the Incarnation. He became Man precisely because He wishes to work with man to save man. It wasn't just to suffer and die; it was to become part of our existence so as to lead us to a greater way of living now. Otherwise, we remain as lost as the people in the OT.
Whether or not it's admitted, Premise 4 is indeed the Protestant/non-Catholic Christian approach. There is no way it can't be; unless of course one doesn't wish to admit that when one reads the Bible and comes to some conclusion about what's in there, then one is indeed "interpreting" it. And since everyone who reads the Bible is a human, then it's a "human interpretation".
The terms “Hellenistic Greek” and “Koine Greek” are used interchangeably for the language spoken in this period. Christian scholars also use the terms “Biblical Greek” and “New Testament Greek” to refer to the language as it appears in the earliest copies of the New Testament of the Christian Bible.So you seek it was Alexander the Great and his conquering armies that propagated a variant of the Attic Greek. The styling differences in the NT manuscripts from generic Koine were a result of synthesizing the Koine with semitic word patterns natural to the semitic writers. But there is no doubt the base language we call Koine did exist and was widely used in common discourse and commerce. And as the paragraph above demonstrates, it had its uses in other major writings of the period besides the NT, such as "The histories of Polybius, the discourses of Epictetus."
After the conquests of Alexander the Great (roughly 336-323 BCE) the language underwent far-reaching changes. Alexander carried the Attic-Ionic form of the language, along with Greek culture more generally, far into the Near East where it became the standard language of commerce and government, existing along side many local languages. Greek was adopted as a second language by the native people of these regions and was ultimately transformed into what has come to be called the Hellenistic Koiné or common Greek. This new form of the language remained essentially a further development of the Attic-Ionic synthesis. (emphasis added by me)
The Hellenistic Koine brought significant changes in vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar, and some of these changes have persisted into Modern Greek. The time of rapid change initiated by Alexander, though, lasted from about 300 BCE to 300 CE. The histories of Polybius, the discourses of Epictetus, and the Christian New Testament all date from this period and are good representatives of the Koine.
Available here: http://www.greek-language.com/History.html
An preost wass onn Herodess daȝȝClear as mud, right? But a legitimate early form of English. Just as Koine remains a legitimate early form of Greek. So again, the claim of modern Greeks having trouble reading Koine is proof only that languages do change, which really should be expected. That's just what languages do.
Amang Judisskenn þeode,
& he wass, wiss to fulle soþ,
Ȝehatenn Zacariȝe,
& haffde an duhhtiȝ wif, þhat wass,
Off Aaroness dohhtress;
& ȝho wass, wiss to fulle soþ,
Elysabæþ ȝehatenn.
Quoted from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English_Bible_translations
When Monday comes around, it will be His 15h day.
That isn’t opinion. That is based on the same ‘standard’ that your rabbis used for passover 2014..
Counting from the ‘new moon’..(April 19th moon was spotted)
Exodus 16 details what occurred on the ‘15th’ day of the 2nd month.
It also described what started on the 16th day. (Manna for six days)
If one can read and count, they will see the very 1st ‘weekly’ Sabbath occurred on the 22nd day..
16-1st work
17-2md work
18- 3rd work
19- 4th work
20- 5th work
21- 6th work
22- First Sabbath in wilderness..
23- 1st work
24- 2nd work
25- 3rd work
26- 4th work
27- 5th work
28- 6th work
29- 2nd Sabbath in wilderness.
Man, Ezekiel’s template just happens to follow that EXACT pattern.
Israel was being taught His calendar a month into their journey.
And that was the 2nd month. Can we find any other places in scripture that would show the 15th, 22nd or 29th days as holy convocations and sabbath ‘rests’?
Yup.. feast of unleavened bread, feast of tabernacles with both seven day feasts beginning with a holy convocation and no servile work on the 15th days of the 1st and 7th months..
And then we have the ‘22nd’ day of the 7th month is also a Sabbath.
With study, one can see that the Feast of Weeks will land on one of those 8/15/22/29 days in the 4th month..
All naturally built into His calendar so even gentiles could ‘observe’ His Sabbath without having to do what the Jews were required to do..
His Sabbath has been hidden because the world has brought thellie that new moon days are just any day..
Sun and Saturn worshippers won’t see it.
His Bride can know it... if they ask, seek , knock aand heed the call to not be conformed to the world but be transformed by the renewing of our minds.
Not slaves to Rome’s lies..
Their calendar is a lie..
And His Word proves it..His Word made flesh lived it..
And His Kingdom operates on it..
We may not see it till His Kingdom comes..
But His Bride can live it..
You'll note in all these instances, the people in question don't come to their revelatory moments via reading the Scriptures.
Wrong, while examples can be given of coming to revelatory moments via reading the Scriptures, the fact you seem to be missing or ignoring is that in every case in the OT alone, not exceptions, souls came know that the OT Scriptures (by which Christ established His Truth claims) were of God without ensured magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
And likewise in every case they realized that OT men were of God without an IM, and which is how the NT church began, not under veracity of Truth claims being based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome! Under which that suddenly becomes necessary.
Rather, souls were convinced that Christ was the Messiah, and of the Truth of the Gospel in the light of Scriptural substantiation. Thus it was tripartite Scripture that the Lord substantiated His mission by to the disciples, and opened they eyes to them. (Lk. 24:44,45)
They come to greater knowledge of God via instruction, either from divine revelation, from Jesus, or from St. Paul.
Whether knowing there is a God and His in essence by nature, (Rm. 1:19,20; 2:14) or by Scripture (and recognizing it as being of God), or via preaching, the point is that a perpetual infallible magisterium was not essential, nor even the norm, as it did not exist before a church even existed, nor after despite Rome presuming it.
Let's pause and reflect on that for a moment: All the cases you cited are not of anyone "studying" the Scriptures.
Which convincing by Scripture certainly can be shown, (Acts 17:11; 18:28; 2Tim. 3:15) while certainly souls can also be convinced something is of God without the Scriptures, thus the pagans in Rm. 1 were without excuse for their idolatry.
And before Scripture began to be penned, God spoke in a very limited way to a limited amount of people. But once the Law was given, then as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced
I suppose one could bring up the case of the Bereans earlier in the chapter of Acts (17) but this is just another example of teaching.
Wrong again, as they searched the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of apostolic teaching, the very thing a faithful RC is discouraged from doing (for that purpose). Disagree if you want, and i will show you.
St. Paul didn't just throw a copy of the Scriptures at the Bereans and leave them alone. They studied it, with his help.
Actually, Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2) while the Bereans received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
It remains that none of what you have said supports the necessity of an IM in order to what what is of God, but instead even the infallible Lord as well as His disciples established their Truth claims upon evidence, providing Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the fact that they simply spoke it being a guarantee that it was True, though since Christ was God in the flesh, this was true. Note also that the polemical supports for an "infallible" Cath teaching are not themselves covered under the "guarantee of infallibility.
I'll leave it to any objective dispassionate lurker to decide for himself,
Indeed. When they find a perpetual IM being essential in Scripture in order to know what is of God, then they need to show us, since no one else has or can.
Overall, the main point is that you haven't been able to substantiate a reason to substitute the original Premise 4 for your own.
What! Talk about being stubbornly committed to what you want to believe despite the evidence! How can "The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today" be supported when the Scriptures testifies to souls knowing what Scripture both is and means but without an IM, while the poster himself allows that "there are plenty of historical, mathematical, and scientific facts which are beyond speculation." But somehow no one is able to understand even what Thou shalt not commit adultery" without an IM? What an excuse souls will have on judgment day.
Note that neither the RC nor you can simply argue that mere human instrumentality is essential, but that the ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is.
He became Man precisely because He wishes to work with man to save man. It wasn't just to suffer and die; it was to become part of our existence so as to lead us to a greater way of living now. Otherwise, we remain as lost as the people in the OT.
Christ gave more grace, with a better atonement, high priest and covenant, as Hebrews states (keyword "better"), yet some souls were saved in the OT and some souls are also lost in the NT, but what is missing from the list of better things ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, which is simply read into the NT based upon the fallacious premise of necessity.
Whether or not it's admitted, Premise 4 is indeed the Protestant/non-Catholic Christian approach.
Wrong, as no matter how much you may desperately want to believe it, the fact is that "The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today" is a straw man, as it precludes anyone from making a correct, infallible "beyond speculation" interpretation of Scripture, when we see the NT church itself beginning because souls had correctly understood both writings and men as being of God, and not on the basis of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. And even pagans can believe in God so surely in the light of natural revelation that they are without excuse.
You need to return your pasted polemic. What the polemicist needs to argue is that "No human authority can presume to infallibly interpret the Holy Scriptures today on the basis of ensured infallibility," but then he must reason that this is essential for souls to know something "of a Truth." Which remains a novel premise in Scripture.
You play games with this.
There are no “originals” of anything.
Its not the Hebrew “thought patterns,” but the completely ignorant translation devoid of understanding of the very core of what the original authors taught.
If the Apostles had done the translation to Greek the understanding of the Hebrew traditions would not have been so completely muffed. They were obviously done by someone with a totally secular Roman education, not by a Hebrew apostle that had lived their entire life day by day in those traditions.
Yeshua’s first miracle is a good example. Each of the miracles was centered on the demolition of one of the Pharisees’ Takanot. The making of wine was done in the ceremonial hand washing pots, thus slamming the “washing of the hands.” But there was no hint that the translator of John’s gospel had the slightest understanding of that event.
Do you think John understood?
All of the epistles are jammed full of clumsy misunderstandings of what was being discussed. Every time one of the feasts is mentioned, it is called “a feast of the Jews,” but no Jew would have looked at them in that manner; they knew that the feasts were for the world, and that those that failed to respect them were buying curses and damnation upon themselves and their nations.
Most Christians are so poorly schooled on what the entire Bible is all about that these things mean nothing to them, but to all that have studied the word fully they stand out like a sore thumb.
Its like the difference between a “Little Golden Book” version, and an upper division text book.
If its not for you, OK, but please don’t try to snow those that understand. That is way below your level.
.
.
Monday will be partly the 15th and partly the 16th of Iyyar.
You have no understanding of Yehova’s days.
basically the entire Christian Church for the first sixteen or seventeen centuries...
for the first 16 or 17 centuries would be Catholic....no one else there.....very lonely
Don’t tell that to the Eastern Orthodox :)
Thank you so much for your engaging insights, dear brother in Christ!
Objections anticipated and duly noted. I leave the reader to make up their own minds. Have a good weekend. :)
Peace,
SR
Excellent. By God’s Grace.
WOW....that has to be the most ignorant statement concerning Heaven that I have ever seen.....Moses, Elias, Jacob, Abraham, Noah and a real large bunch of Jews and Hebrews and various other non Christian religions are going to be very upset to find out that they can't be saved....and only TRUE Christians???/well I believe that only Catholic Christians are true and complete Christians, and all those who follow Johnny come lately versions of Christianity are either in error or incomplete...
Not a chance....I can baptize in an emergency, so can you, so can a doctor or nurse, so can a parent and the location of the Baptism means nothing...hospital, bedroom, Lutheran church, baptist church, basement of the courthouse...doesn't matter....a valid Baptism makes you a child of Christ...a Catholic Christian....PERIOD
Yeah...as Christianity grew and prospered through 16 centuries, as magnificent cathedrals, schools, hospitals, castles, civilizations, etc were built by Christians, your little group was hiding in the weeds, behind pillars, in phone booths throughout the world just waiting to spring forth and save mankind with the truth.....O.K.
Because that's what it says....note the born of water part......sheesh
Do you really think that God looks only into the men's rest room....peeking at girls would be wrong....good grief.
Well, I believe that only Catholic Christians are true and complete Christians, and all those who follow Johnny come lately versions of Christianity are either in error or incomplete...
WOW, that has to be the most ignorant statement concerning Heaven I have ever seen....Moses, Elias, Jacob, Abraham, Noah and a real large bunch of Jews and Hebrews are going to be be very upset to find out they were either in error or incomplete, being as none of them were Catholics. Neither am I. I am a member of the only true church, the one the helps me navigate through all the garbage out there. 😀😁😂😅😄😃 Don't knock it till you've tried it. 😎😋😇😉 When Gabriel blows his horn, we will know for sure, won't we? I am SUPER comfortable with that. Have a nice eternity. See you at the pearly gates, maybe. 😆😩😱🙀😣
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.