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.
There is clearly no room for the Holy Spirit in Catholicism.
They’ve assigned the “magisterium” the job and it has now replaced Him.
They attribute all the work of the Holy Spirit to a committee.
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
John 14:8-13 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
Now, a simple yes or no question.....
Was Jesus a male?
ROFLOL! And the "Day of the Lord" actually began on the Feast of Trumpets in the fall of 2000 right? And Zechariah's woman in a basket was actually fire right? And Iran had nuclear warheads already in 2000 right?
Ever read a dictionary??? Born nor water means baptism...Sheesh!!!
It's not a straw man unless you want to claim:
That you are not a human being or...
That you do not read Scripture infallibly or...
That the Holy Spirit dictates to you, word for word, what the true meaning of Scripture is.
It's just that simple.
I know that Erev, the Hebrew Word used in Creation for Evening, is a word that has a definition of ‘twilight’, dusk, fading of the day..
(Strongs # 6153)
And His Creation shows us that before there can be ‘dusk’, that LIGHT must come first..
Which is exacty what Genesis says..
He Spoke Light., and there was (then), dusk, and then there was (eventually) Boqer ( strongs 1242)/ dawn/morning
First day..
Rabbis don’t even get that right!
No wonder so many walk in darkness.
There was ‘dusk’ there was dawn, first day.
Yup, that is why so many have been given strong delusion.
Maybe everything you were ever taught is just an inherited lie like Jeremiah 16:19 says.
Now in my concordance has an incorrect definition for that word that is used in Genesis, then boy I would have to get a new concordance.
But I don’t think the concordance has an agenda...
You and I won’t agree on much if we don’t agree Light came before dusk..
But it starts to make more and more sense..
If you have a different definition for ERev , please send it along..
Creation’s narrative makes much more sense when one sees He spoke Light. Then there became ‘less light’ ( dusk/twilight), then morning ( dawn)
And then He did more Work on His next Light (day)
Then the work was done and dusk/twilight/fading of the ‘day’, then came night, then came morning(dawn)
If one doesn’t get Creation right, they will never understand the calendar and clock He gave to commemorate His Creation.
it is why judaism can have as many as 3 sabbath days in one 7 day period.
When Leviticus 23:3 says 6 days shall work be done, but on the 7th day is a Sabbath on solemn rest, a holy convocation..
The one place He has 2 Sabbaths ( the weekly sabbath on the 8th day in His 7th month and the 10th day ) close to each other, His calendar shows He gave a preparation day (9th day) between them..
He never changes.,
But the enemy thinks to change times and laws..
Rome tells us a day begins at night.. they lie..
And His Word, the Hebrew ones, can be studied and see how the poor English substitutes ( like evening and morning) cause billions to be ignorant of Light began His Day.
And He did all His Work in the Light.
But scripture warned us not to walk in darkness..
Who knew the secular humanists could see that dark and cold are simply the absence of light and heat and not ‘created’.
It explains a lot..
And how assured you are that one cannot understand His Days, except they have the rabbinic opinion you share..
There was ‘dusk’ , there was ‘dawn’ the first day.
That describes the first Night..
That is prophetic in some way I just don’t know how..
Someday you may wake up and know everything you ever learned were deceitful lies bred from the father of all lies..
I already had that happen to me..
That is why today is His 6th Work day to me.. and why religion is dead to me..
His Word, His sky, a concordance (if one doesn’t know Hebrew or Greek), and His Spirit is all one needs..
And all I use after I realized what Rome was..
He will lead us to all Truth. One must be willing to admit as a sheep, it is eaay to be deceived by the father of all lies.
If yesterday was your sabbath and nothing will convince you otherwise, you are free to believe it.
Faith in Rome needn’t mean one goes to their mass or be a member of their church,
Simply calling today Sunday confirms one is willing to let Rome tell them what day it is..
Even the protestants on here that beat up Rome daily..
It is all done in ‘faith’,,
And to be honest, the world confirms your faith in rome-. Your computer tells you what day it is.. your newspapers, your TV, your work..
All point to Rome being the authority on what day it is.
I am okay with going the absolute opposite direction. I have been blessed by the Creator of Heaven, earth the sea and all that is in them when I asked Him for a clock and calendar.
And observing it and studying it, the Messiah’s life jumped right off the pages..
And people won’t see it without taking Rome’s glasses off first.
but everyone has their own faith walk.
No Rabbi, pastor, reverend, minister taught me what I believe today.
Simply amazing how much we can know when we admit we don’t know anything..
Like there has to be a ‘humbling’ first. Just like in repentance..
Another Work He does in us.
HalleluYah!
This is not a remarkable fact because since there wasn't any "IM" to begin with obviously there couldn't be any to guide the first Christians. But there was Christ, and after he left, there were His Apostles.
You can post paragraphs upon paragraphs in reply but the fact remains that there are no instances in Scripture where you can point to and say, "Look, here's someone just reading Scripture alone and coming to know things of God!"
No, what is seen in each instance is someone either listening to and accepting an authority figure (Jesus, one of the Apostles, or through divine revelation the truth is known) who either also uses Scripture and reason to support his claims or just uses reason to do so.
So if anything, a foreshadowing of a needed "assured infallible" authority is shown in the OT, and the beginnings of it is shown in the new. There's a significant difference between the OT and the NT that must be considered: in the OT, God had not entirely revealed Himself to man (as much as He has since Jesus' time on Earth). So we can't say, "oh, we should just rely upon the same kind of learning experiences that are found in the OT".
Also, similarly to the events in the NT before Jesus' ascension: we can't just say, "oh, I'm going to rely on having the same kind of learning experience while Jesus was on Earth" for the obvious fact that Jesus isn't here in His own individual human body.
The experiences we share in common with anyone in Scripture are those of the Apostles and their disciples after Pentecost.
Now that God has revealed Himself as much as He wills to all Mankind (no more public universal revelation to come) we are left with either relying on the same kind of revelation in the OT (but that's not going to come anymore as again, no more public revelation is forthcoming) or relying upon physical manifestations of Christ to guide our knowledge (but he has ascended to heaven) or relying upon an authority figure here to help guide us to knowkedge of the things of God. An authority figure who is himself (or itself) guided by God.
Or we are left with nothing OR we are left with a belief that God (the Holy Spirit) somehow guides each of us individually, apart from any "IM", the exact manifestation of this guidance remains a mystery.
However if this last possibility is the only possibility then we each claim to have the gift of infallibility (from the Holy Spirit) UNLESS we claim that it's not us who are infallible but He who is infallible in us.
That is the same thing as saying He talks to us individually, with either an audible voice or one inside our head, to "teach us all things". However that's self deception, which anyone can see if one is humble enough.
There is a significant difference between:
claiming Party A helps Party B with the aid of the Holy Spirit vs..
Claiming the Holy Spirit helps both party A and B directly.
The former protects Party B from error on only one given point at a time. It is not assured in the former that either Party A or.B will be correct about everything, all the time. In fact it may at some other point in time be the Holy Spirit's will that Party B teaches Party A. This is the Catholic claim.
The latter protects both from error on all points. The latter is the Protestant claim, however is by definition "infallibility" because for all things both parties are protected from error. That's the definition of "infallibility".
The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today... then it follows that each term is there for a syllogistic purpose, to link primary terms over an appropriate number of joining terms (middle terms). This is somewhat problematic for the above premise because it is an overly complex aggregation of ideas. Where are the boundaries on the primary and middle terms? I don't know. But let's take the premise at its word and assume we are not talking about private individuals per se but only that which fully satisfies all the (best guess) terms, because I think we can agree that not all interpreters of Scripture fall into the category of "human authority." I would further narrow this as stating that we are not talking about individual authority figures interpreting the text in a personal or private setting, but those interpreting the text in some official capacity, acting as an authority, and therefore merging the question of fallibility/infallibility with their exercise of authority. Else why include the qualifier "authority?"
THis is just claiming the same thing claimed for the Pope alone (and/or those in communion with him). Actually it's greater, because as Daniel pointed out the claim WRT the Pope and the bishops in union with him is not as great as claiming what is above, which that the Holy Spirit is a "superhuman authority that is available to all believers, the word of God as illuminated by the Spirit of God."
The passage in quotes above is the same situation as analyzed below:
...we are left with a belief that God (the Holy Spirit) somehow guides each of us individually, apart from any "IM", the exact manifestation of this guidance remains a mystery.
We each claim to have the gift of infallibility (from the Holy Spirit) UNLESS we claim that it's not us who are infallible but He who is infallible in us.
That is the same thing as saying He talks to us individually, with either an audible voice or one inside our head, to "teach us all things". However that's self deception, which anyone can see if one is humble enough.
There is a significant difference between:
Claiming Party A helps Party B with the aid of the Holy Spirit vs..
Claiming the Holy Spirit helps both party A and B directly.
The former protects Party B from error on only one given point at a time. It is not assured in the former that either Party A or B will be correct about everything, all the time. In fact it may at some other point in time be the Holy Spirit's will that Party B teaches Party A. This is the Catholic claim.
The latter protects both from error on all points. The latter is the Protestant claim, however is by definition "infallibility" because for all things both parties are protected from error. That's the definition of "infallibility".
Which is akin to Gnosticism. The "understanding of the Hebrew traditions" by an esoteric few means that for about 2000 years at best only a scintilla number of souls have had the word of God, since what we do have in thousands of mss and translations is a completely muffed understanding of the Hebrew traditions, full of clumsy misunderstandings, devoid of understanding of the very core.
I am amazed you even call them Christians who are outside your tiny cultic clan who alone have the true word of God.
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.
Meaning the Holy Spirit, since He did not inspire the writer to add this commentary.
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.
Meaning you blame the Holy Spirit, since He did not inspire the writer to say "feast of the world." And thus virtually all but some basically invisible elitists have been buying curses and damnation upon themselves and their nations by believing the Bible the way it was written.
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.
No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you. (Job 12:2)
Or without your esoterical elitist clan
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.
Meaning we are all below your level, just as Rome looks at Prots, supposing she uniquely knows what Scripture means above that of others, with her amorphous tradition. Elitists against Elitists
What so now its your turn to post a straw argument?
No, it was not The “understanding of the Hebrew traditions by an esoteric few.”
It was the ancient traditions of how the feasts of Leviticus were prepared and what they meant in God’s plan, as explained to the disciples by their Messiach.
Those feasts are God’s education plan for his elect. There was not a trace of gnosticism or esoterics involved, and there is no reason for you to try to divert from the real subject at hand.
You do the adversary’s work.
There is no reason that the Holy Spirit would be leading those that worked to recolor the epistles to their own agenda. If that were the HS’s modus, there would not be so many gnostic “gospels” floating around.
I was talking about the very same kind of blind ignorance of God’s well presented plan that prevails in all the dispensational churches that teach a Barnum and Bailey gospel today.
The apostles all knew God’s plan well, as they had been tutored by Yeshua, to remove all of the Pharisee’s corruptions. That is not esoteric.
There is no lack of the Holy Spirit’s guidance in the surviving 28 copies of Matthew’s original Hebrew gospel. Likely that is the Holy Spirit’s sole provision to the preservation of the Gospel as restored by Yeshua, or those copies would not have come from such diverse parts of the world.
Every bit of your sarcasm is out of place in this discussion, but I guess that is your attempt at a smoke screen? Or do you really believe that Yeshua restored a gnostic plan?
Why did the Holy Spirit not inspire the “Gospel of Thomas,” or the “Gospel of Judas?”
Frankly your reply looks like nothing but angry thrashing.
.
Wow!
No understanding of the fact that the light that came first was Yehova himself?
Your posts are pathetic.
Your error and love of error does not rinse off onto Rood or anyone else.
.
>> “magnificent cathedrals” <<
Palaces of Lucifer!
.
This is not a remarkable fact because since there wasn't any "IM" to begin with obviously there couldn't be any to guide the first Christians. But there was Christ, and after he left, there were His Apostles.
Which proves what? The issue from the beginning has been the necessity of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility in order to correctly know what is of God, which you have been unable to show.
Certainly God has provided wholly inspired infallible providers of Truth, which cannot be claimed of Rome's magisterium (and while you focus on interpreting Scripture texts, it has hardly engaged in any of that) while souls came to assuredly ascertain these sources of Truth and what they said were of God, without a perpetual IM. Nor did even the writers of Scripture possess ensured infallibility so that whatever they ever wrote on faith and morals would be wholly inspired of God.
What Rome has effectively done is to presume a supernatural quality which only Christ is shown to have.
Rather than simply allowing that souls may ascertain that what their church teaches is True in the light of evidence, Rome requires implicit assent to whatever she has and will say in accordance with her scope and subject-based criteria based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
You can post paragraphs upon paragraphs in reply but the fact remains that there are no instances in Scripture where you can point to and say, "Look, here's someone just reading Scripture alone and coming to know things of God!" No, what is seen in each instance is someone either listening to and accepting an authority figure (Jesus, one of the Apostles, or through divine revelation the truth is known) who either also uses Scripture and reason to support his claims or just uses reason to do so.
Indeed, and hereby you - who before asserted what the Prot position is - example belief in another fav RC propagandist strawman, that SS means only Scripture is to be used in determining what God reveals, even to excluding reason (taking Luther out of context), and that there is no place for human instruments in so doing.
But which is not what is means, except to a few ignorant fringe extremists, for while holding the Scripture alone is the infallible sufficient (in respective formal and material aspects) standard of faith, under SS it is understood that Scripture provides for reason, illumination, discernment of Truth (and by extension, a canon) and teachers, and the magisterial office, etc.
Thus as no less than the Prot Westminster Confession states,
“all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
Cp. VI: ...we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. hat “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
So if anything, a foreshadowing of a needed "assured infallible" authority is shown in the OT, and the beginnings of it is shown in the new.
What kind of superior reasoning is this? All that you have shown is the viability of reason, and human instrumentality and the magisterial office, and of wholly inspired sources, and with souls discerning such to be of God, none of which translates into ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, nor that there was one.
There's a significant difference between the OT and the NT that must be considered: in the OT, God had not entirely revealed Himself to man (as much as He has since Jesus' time on Earth). So we can't say, "oh, we should just rely upon the same kind of learning experiences that are found in the OT".
More wrong reasoning: Revelation was always progressive, and God still has not revealed all that man can know, but But when that which is perfect is come...then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:10,13) Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)
Yet ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was never necessary in order to discern Truth, while the gifted infallible sources which provided it were those wholly inspired of God, and now we have more of that than before, covering from creation to consummation.
If you wanted to propose Rome being as a prophet who foretells events that would be one thing, but you are not, as instead you are promoting a non-inspired magisterium which possesses a gift of infallibility which can render even an extraScriptural event which lacks testimony from the times when it would be popularized, and instead evidences itself to be a fable which developed, to be "remembered" and made into binding doctrine requiring assent to it or else being cut off! And then even claims that this "remembered" event is not new public revelation. Which again is cultic, not Christian
Also, similarly to the events in the NT before Jesus' ascension: we can't just say, "oh, I'm going to rely on having the same kind of learning experience while Jesus was on Earth" for the obvious fact that Jesus isn't here in His own individual human body.
Actually, the "learning experience" was upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, that being the only wholly inspired transcendent source on earth, and by which the Lord substantiated His prophesied Messiahship and message by. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44,45)
And again, you cannot compare the IM of Rome with the wholly inspired infallible Scriptures or the Word made flesh.
Now that God has revealed Himself as much as He wills to all Mankind (no more public universal revelation to come) we are left with either relying on the same kind of revelation in the OT (but that's not going to come anymore as again, no more public revelation is forthcoming) or relying upon physical manifestations of Christ to guide our knowledge (but he has ascended to heaven) or relying upon an authority figure here to help guide us to knowkedge of the things of God. An authority figure who is himself (or itself) guided by God.
We do uphold the teaching and magisterial office, but what you mean is that of a perpetual IM, with the premise of its ensured veracity being what the believers assurance rest, but which perpetual ensured veracity of office is foreign to Scripture. Rome cannot claim, esp. now, the level of virtue or supernatural attestation of a Moses or Christ, or to be wholly inspired of God, nor the qualifications and credentials of the foundational apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,17; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12). Yet the greater the claim, then the greater the attestation must be.
However, under both the OT and NT Rome did provide infallible sources of Truth, which we uniquely have now in wholly inspired Scripture, with the veracity of Truth claims resting upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, even if not providing new public rev. to which all the church is bound to assent to.
Or we are left with nothing OR we are left with a belief that God (the Holy Spirit) somehow guides each of us individually, apart from any "IM", the exact manifestation of this guidance remains a mystery.
A false dilemma, as we both have Scripture and the teaching and magisterial office, with its authority being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, by which the Lord and His church substantiated Truth claims by, as being the transcendent Standard.
This means that the church cannot rest its claim to veracity upon self-declaration, historical descent or a unique charism, but must continually manifest that it is the church of the living God, resting upon and supporting the Truth.
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:20)
And thereby overcome the competition of error, versus the premise of ensured veracity whereby Scripture, history and tradition only mean what she says in any conflict.
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)
By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:7)
However if this last possibility is the only possibility then we each claim to have the gift of infallibility (from the Holy Spirit) UNLESS we claim that it's not us who are infallible but He who is infallible in us. That is the same thing as saying He talks to us individually, with either an audible voice or one inside our head, to "teach us all things". However that's self deception, which anyone can see if one is humble enough.
As your premise of false so is your argument. Again, it was never necessary for souls to have a perpetual IM in order to know what was of God, though God did at times raise up manifest men and women of God to speak His word. And wholly inspired men to write His word. Neither of which is the same thing as claiming ensured perpetual formulaic magisterial infallibility, while as written, Scripture became the transcendent standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, to which more conflative and complementary writings were established as being of God in the light of their unique Heavenly qualities and attestation, as men of God were. And won the competition over pseudo-inspired revelation (which Rome also purveys), which are allowed to test the people.
There is a significant difference between: claiming Party A helps Party B with the aid of the Holy Spirit vs.. Claiming the Holy Spirit helps both party A and B directly. The former protects Party B from error on only one given point at a time. It is not assured in the former that either Party A or.B will be correct about everything, all the time. In fact it may at some other point in time be the Holy Spirit's will that Party B teaches Party A. This is the Catholic claim. The latter protects both from error on all points. The latter is the Protestant claim, however is by definition "infallibility" because for all things both parties are protected from error. That's the definition of "infallibility".
You continue to rely upon a straw man, as the Protestant claim - certainly not i ever read nor one asserted here - is not that the Spirit protects both both parties from error on all points. Instead, it certainly must allow that even pagans can know basic Truth to such certainly that they are without excuse for denying it, and and that from the Scriptures, and the "use of ordinary means" (which includes the teaching office) souls can ascertain Truth as surely as anyone did in Scripture, which never necessitated ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
And that instead of the latter, God often raised up manifest men of God to correct the magisterium and to provide and preserve Truth and faith. And provided His wholly inspired Scriptures as the supreme standard as the assured word of God. And thus by both means the church began, and thus it has been preserved as the body of Christ. That is how Scripture reveals God providing and preserving Truth, which has not been tried and found wanting, but wanting to be tried continually.
The church saw its limited unity under manifest Scripturally established men of God such as i do not see today, and the likes of which are too rare today, and thus the earthly divisions are both necessary, much due to Rome, if not the ideal. But the remnant know of a spiritual unity that is Biblical, in contrast to the cultic unity under the premise of the church effectively being superior over Scripture, as per Rome and cults.
It is indeed a straw man because of your definition of what infallibly interpreting Scripture means. The author of your argument equates it to knowing even historical, mathematical, and scientific facts beyond speculation." beyond speculation," and thus in order to be consistent with your polemicist, then you must hold that we reject any human authority from knowing beyond speculation that even the most basic commandments cannot be correctly understood without speculation. In addition to disallowing anyone from correctly understanding even natural revelation testifies to a Creator.
And by holding that this means that the Holy Spirit dictates to me word for word, what the true meaning of Scripture is, then you are going beyond what even Rome holds the IM does.
It's just that simple.
What you need to establish is the necessity of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, but instead you also wrongly argued for the involvement of humans in ascertaining veracity of Truth claims, but which does not translate into an IM.
You also wrongly relegate the discernment of Truth to meaning "just me and the Holy Spirit" if one rejects the premise of an IM, but which is a false dilemma, as this does not mean rejection of the magisterial office.
Nor does Christ being an infallible authority support the necessity of Rome's IM to know Truth, as souls knew both men and writings of God were so without one, while the infallible nature of Christ and the writers of Holy Writ was under the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which is not the case with the IM. Now instead of trying to play games with fallacious syllogisms,
But you state that Scripture we do have in thousands of mss and translations is a "completely muffed understanding of the Hebrew traditions," "full of clumsy misunderstandings," "devoid of understanding of the very core." Leaving those who have been believing the Bible the way it was written. to be buying "curses and damnation upon themselves and their nations."
Leaving only a esoteric few who have the real deal,
You do the adversary’s work.
Me and all the bible translators and the the rest of Christianity who believe them. Well, at least we have two sides made clear. I will stay with what is written in Greek.
There is no reason that the Holy Spirit would be leading those that worked to recolor the epistles to their own agenda.
Which of course, cannot be your side.
The apostles all knew God’s plan well, as they had been tutored by Yeshua, to remove all of the Pharisee’s corruptions. That is not esoteric.
Which simply presumes that they would act according to your doctrine, left out of the Greek.
There is no lack of the Holy Spirit’s guidance in the surviving 28 copies of Matthew’s original Hebrew gospel. Likely that is the Holy Spirit’s sole provision to the preservation of the Gospel as restored by Yeshua, or those copies would not have come from such diverse parts of the world.
Mmmm. Does'nt sound like much of the word of God has endured forever after the 1st c. And of course, the the vast majority of scholars believe Matthew was originally written in Greek must be dismissed.
Every bit of your sarcasm is out of place in this discussion, but I guess that is your attempt at a smoke screen? Or do you really believe that Yeshua restored a gnostic plan?
Such absurd claims warrant some sarcasm, while your assertion of special knowledge based upon what you see what missing, is what is akin to gnosticism.
Frankly your reply looks like nothing but angry thrashing.
And "you do the adversary’s work" is so charitable, as well as relegating all but those who subscribe to your elitist remnant to being cursed for not keeping Jewish feasts.
Come on!
There is nothing “esoteric” about it.
There is no closed circle of Illuminati smugly hiding anything.
There have been millions spent to spread the truth to those that will hear it.
Stan Johnson alone has spent at least a million of his own cash broadcasting everything he can get to spread the word.
I didn’t tell you to abandon your Greek facsimiles. I use them too, but I recognize their shortcomings.
.
Sorry for the delay, everyone; my FR access is slim to none, on weekends. More later, when time permits!
.
We’ll try our best too carry on without you.
.
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.