Are you infallible?

One Fold ^ | December 10, 2013 | Brian Culliton

[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.

[BlueDragon]

If our Friend dan knocked it out of the park, then you've sent it further out into orbit.

Now if we could just get whoever it is presently in the ISS to look out the windows at the right place at just the right time -- and take a picture...

[RnMomof7]

(*sigh*) Not if you don't count the billions of people throughout the ages and throughout the world who have been reborn that way, I guess...

No they were not "born again" in baptism ...but they did get a good shampoo

As you know this scripture has been bandied about for generations.. But seeing the thief on the cross was saved..as were all the saints of the OT without being baptized ...I think we an rule out the fallible RC interpretation

I present one that seems to present an interesting view of the scripture ...

Bengel's Gnomen John 3:5. Ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ Πνεύματος, of water and the Spirit) Jesus renders His speech the more difficult, in order to try [discipline] Nicodemus, and at the same time declares the difference between birth from above, and birth from a mother: and He defines birth from above by communion with [the partaking of] Himself and with [of] the Spirit (for He speaks concerning Himself and concerning the Spirit also at John 3:11, “we speak that we do know”). Comp. 1 Corinthians 6:11, “Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” No one can enjoy God without the Son and His Spirit. Water denotes the baptism of John into [preparing for] Christ Jesus, John 3:22-23 [Jesus tarried in the land of Judæa with His disciples, and baptized: “John was also baptizing in Ænon,” etc.]; which baptism the colleagues of Nicodemus, by omitting, John 3:1, despised the counsel of God: Luke 7:30, “The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John;” when nevertheless the Jews were accustomed to baptisms: Hebrews 9:10, “divers washings.” And Nicodemus himself appears to have entertained not sufficiently exalted views of John and his baptism, as being one who had wrought no miracle. Comp. John 3:2 [where he emphasises the ‘miracles’ of Jesus; thus forming a contrast to John]. Nor is communion needful with Christ only, but also with His Spirit: Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized—in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” And because the same Spirit glorifies Christ, for this reason, the mention of water being presently after omitted, mention is made of the Spirit alone, of whom we are to be born again: nor does He say at John 3:6, that which is born of water is water. Therefore the necessity of regeneration primarily, and of baptism secondarily, is here confirmed (comp. a similar καί, and, ch. John 6:40, every one which seeth the Son and believeth on Him): otherwise there would be but little hope of infants dying without baptism. Comp. as to water and the Spirit, Titus 3:5, “Not by works which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”—εἰσελθεῖν, enter) Answering to the word enter [a second time into his mother’s womb] of the previous verse. The severity of His expression increases: comp. see, John 3:3. He cannot even enter, much less see. He must enter a house, whoever wishes to see thoroughly its internal structure. That which is not born, uses neither eyes nor feet.

[paladinan]

So the Holy Spirit kinda drift in and out ...???

That would be a crude and flippant way of putting it, I think. It has nothing to do with "drift"; if one sins mortally, one KILLS the life of God within one's soul, and the Holy Spirit flees that place. He's too much of a gentlemen to stay where he's so obviously not wanted.

So does He return after one does 3 Hail Marys and 3 Our Fathers?

(*gasp*) Oh, my goodness! Those scary "Hail, Marys" and "Our Fathers" (wait... don't Protestants say the Lord's Prayer, too? And more than once in their lives? Sounds like "vain repetition", to me... :) ) [/sarc]

But no, no... He returns only after having done the Holy Hokey Pokey... in Latin, ad orientem, without the abominations known as "accompaniment". :)

(Let me know when you want to get serious again, and we can resume chatting about substantial stuff.)

BTW The catechism is not an infallible document.. so it is subject to change ..

The Catechism contains a great many infallible doctrines, all compiled into one handy volume (so that you needn't scour numerous council texts, etc.); you really should read it, sometime... especially if you intend to keep presuming to talk about the Catholic Church as if you know something substantial about it. Just saying.

Do we have any infallible scripture on the in and out Holy Spirit ??

Duh! Of COURSE we do! I just TOLD you that it was the Holy Hokey Pokey! Weren't you listening?! ("You put your Spirit in... you put your Spirit out... etc.")

[paladinan]

No they were not "born again" in baptism ...but they did get a good shampoo

:) ...and this is settled decisively by the infallible decree of RnMomof7! Gotcha.

By the way... no shampoo during Baptism. It may invalidate the Sacrament (which requires plain water). Stings the eyes of the babies, too.

[paladinan]

As you know this scripture has been bandied about for generations.. But seeing the thief on the cross was saved..as were all the saints of the OT without being baptized ...I think we an rule out the fallible RC interpretation

One simple question for you, RnMomof7. Just one.

Do you know ANYTHING about the Catholic Church, whatsoever?

You talk a great deal about Her, but you really don't offer anything which a 7-year-old Catholic couldn't spot as nonsense. Read the Catechism. Don't settle for anti-Catholic cliff notes.

[CynicalBear]

Thank you for finally proving our point. Your points 1,2, & 3 are based on works based salvation.

[RnMomof7]

You talk a great deal about Her, but you really don't offer anything which a 7-year-old Catholic couldn't spot as nonsense. Read the Catechism. Don't settle for anti-Catholic cliff notes.

Just present us with documents from the magisterium with an infallible definition of that scripture ...without that it remains simply ones own personal interpretation of that scripture..

Without that ya are simply "blowing smoke"

[ealgeone]

Can you square away Eph 1:13-14 with your statements?

[RnMomof7]

The Catechism contains a great many infallible doctrines, all compiled into one handy volume (so that you needn't scour numerous council texts, etc.); you really should read it, sometime... especially if you intend to keep presuming to talk about the Catholic Church as if you know something substantial about it. Just saying.

Nope.. The magisterium has only INFALLIBLY defined a handful of scriptures. The RC Catechism is not an accumulation of "infallible doctrine" It is simply a fallible work of men

[BlueDragon]

:) Ah. So you *have* practiced it. That's what I thought; thanks.

How many BTTT's have been posted on FreeRepublic in the last 17 years or so?

I've seen that fairly recently done by one of the RC sisterhood to comments which were then far enough out-of-line, those same "bumped to the top" comments ended up being deleted, with it occurring (fairly recently) twice in the same thread. lol.

So what's this complaint about high-fiving? I lent a pair of those to well thought out and well written comments which wrestled with (and defeated) complex forms of arguments presented in favor of what was referred to in the 19th century as 'Romish' claims to singular authority (for themselves, over and above all others, no ifs, ands, or buts) although that has been modified from Vatican I stances to Vatican II softening of those positions (while still attempting to retain those same claims, IN FULL).

"Cognizant" means "being aware of"... and an argument can't be "aware" of anything; only an arguER can

Ah, you got me there, on poor choice and ill-usage of a word.

Or, better yet, one might drop the combative and belligerent approach altogether, and have an actual discussion of the topics...

Wasn't the initial complaint you had against me, aimed towards this comment --- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3283994/posts?page=1042#1042

Notice that that comment, was not addressed to you.

..and re: the hyperventilating paroxysm about "bullying little people": what ARE you talking about? Which people are you calling "little people", and what do you see as "bullying"?

There's plenty of that. Try searching your own comments.

If you can't see it, then my pointing out particular paragraphs and explaining them --- how in context is often equates to a form of bullying likely as not won't help.

Yet I was intending reference to bullying to not be limited solely to any one individual who engages in bullying promotion of[alleged] papal 'authority'.

My apologies for having seemingly aimed that only towards yourself.

[FourtySeven]

Anyway, I have a proposal, part of a hypothetical civility code some of us are thinking about, that would be a voluntary set of rules we could keep in addition to the regular RF forum rules. My proposal is that when one or the other side realizes they have not moved the other party and have essentially nothing else they can do in terms of adding new information or new analysis, just admit the impasse openly and cordially. I've actually seen others do this, and I've tried it myself a few times. Rather than accusing the other party of not admitting something which they have testified they do not believe, try taking them at their word and admit the dead end.

BTW, this doesn't mean we have to accept false statements of objective fact.

Fine. In the interests of this new accord proposed, I withdraw my posts 1050 and 1021, without conceding anything WRT the veracity of post 34, but admitting that those two specific posts (1050 and 1021) were no more than useless commentary from me that ultimately proved nothing.

Good day,

[MHGinTN]

I wonder, do you realize that Jesus set Nicodemus straight when He said, ‘that which is born of flesh is flesh’? How could you miss the plain teaching of Jesus?

[roamer_1]

Where, exactly, do any Jewish authorities claim infallibility of any stripe (much less the specific type which is entrusted to the Catholic Church)? Chapter and verse, please, since you're "sola Scriptura" types...

Well, there in fact is the problem - It isn't in the Bible for them any more than it is for y'all. You haven't read the Talmud, have you?

BUT, it isn't quite the same - Judaism assumes the infallibility of their great rabbis because of their great knowledge - more like your 'doctors' than your magisterium and pope... Maybe a bit less of a political nature for the Jews, though I guess their Sanhedrin makes up for that (It too, considers itself infallible)... But you should read the Talmud (and the Mishna). It might just astound you at the similiarities. A bunch of silly men claiming to be more than they are, in order to convince themselves that they are more than they are...

But the point is, just like some of your own, the rabbis have said that if they say the sky is green, then you'd better believe it, and in their hubris have declared that even YHWH must bow to their declarations... Infallibility per se, as who can have greater knowledge than the teachers of the knowledge? See, theirs is circular too...

And at the local level, the 'seat of Moses' was much like your 'chair of Peter' = When the chief rabbi spoke from the seat of Moses, that settled the matter. Period. I do not subscribe to the idea that there was a supreme Seat of Moses, though there may well have been, in the context of the Sanhedrin or the Temple... There is legend to that effect, but nothing substantial enough to call true - But still, the concept remains.

Thankfully, the Rabbi to which I am enjoined tore that entire system down... Too bad all y'all didn't get the memo. The power to bind and loose cannot destroy Torah, as that is the instrument defining the power at all... That is the sin of the Pharisees. Again, back to the original contract...

[Mark17]

So the Holy Spirit kinda drift in and out ...??? So does He return after one does 3 Hail Marys and 3 Our Fathers?

LOL Mom. Much of the time, the priest told me to say 5 Hail Marys and 5 our fathers. I called it the 5 squared rule. 😀 I went to confession every Saturday, because I thought I was such a terrible sinner, and I was sure I committed mortal sins every day, and I really was a terrible sinner. I was always sure my good works would get me a warm corner of Hell. That was the only unanswered question I had. Why couldn't I go to Heaven? Of course, I found the answer to my unanswered question in John 3:3 and Romans 4:3. Of course, for the benefit of some on these threads, you need to CAREFULLY define what it means to "believe," but you get the gist of what I am saying. 😇

[knarf]

Mark ... it was my father's death in 1981 that led me to the Lord

I remember staring at him in the casket and wondering; "Where did yoiu go?"My brothers were ticked that I wasn't bawling my eyes out ... they didn't know the cerebral excersize I was having

A few months later, because I had started a friendship with "Jude", a cool catholic priest at a "Newman Center" in a college town ... I was in conversation with him and the opening for me to ask "Where is my Dad" came up and he replied ... "I don't know, and no one CAN know, 'cause no one's cvome back from the dead to tell us"

Which I bought because ... he was a priest and I had been reared to be Catholic and etc., etc.

A few MORE months later, I was at a party ... and havinhg not met a girl to sleep with, and being righteously stoned ... I was fading into dreamland when it hit me (I know NOW the words to say, but back then ... it hit me .. )

I flashed to that converrsation with Jude and realized ...

I don't know where my father is ...

YOU don't know where my father is ...

You're no closer to God than I am ...
A few MORE months later and I was facing a couple of felonies and I went on the run

I went to a guy I knew to ask for his help getting out of the state and .... he was a Messianic Jew, and led me to the Lord

The key element in my receiving Jesus was the bac and forth;

You DO know you've screwed up, knarf"

Yeah

"Did you ever stop to think Jesus died that you would not be such a screw up?"

Naaahhhh

"Have you ever asked Jesus to come into your life and make you into a new and better man?"

no

"Why not?

Why not indeed .... so I did

so at about 7:45 on August 18, 1981, I recieved Jesus as my saviour up _____________ Rd, in __________, WV, at ______________'s kitchen table

I stayed the night, awoke refreshed ... and had this insane desire to turn myself in

Which I did

I spent two months in pre-trial, the Holy Spirit worked in the hearts of my accusers (I WAS guilty) and my felony was dropped to a misdemeanor ... which I pled to, and walked.

While in jail, I read the bible for the first time in my life and was so ANGRY that no one had EVER suggested I actually READ THE BIBLE !!

I had a great desire to be baptised which is very, VERY weird for a Catholic (I still did not comprehend His salvation) ... but, anyway ... I looked in the phone book for a Baptist church .... sounded like the right thing to do at the time

The preacher on the otherr end had a bapticostal fit when I so innocently told and explained myself ... I was picked up the next Sunday, and for the first time in my life I heard a man speak the most profound words of wisdom I had EVER heard and I HAD to come back next week ...

That was 34 years ago .... still in an independent, fundamental Baptist congregation.

[MHGinTN]

Interesting that you focus upon this at this time. The close friend who led me to Christ more than forty-five years ago died Sunday. He was only a couple of years older than me. We roomed together in college when he got out of OCS. When he got saved, got born again in 1972, he and his wife immediately drove down to Alabama to share the good news with me, and I too came to Christ for Salvation. When that happened, The Holy Spirit sealed my spirit.

He, The Holy Spirit, has had a busy time these past decades teaching me how to get out of His way and let Christ live through a stubborn me. But God is true to His promises and He has never left me and has at times been long suffering with me grieving Him.

My friend is in Him and I too am in Him. Since I believe the Rapture will happen any moment, from now until 2017, I believe I will see my friend again, soon, and he will be in a well, glorified body. The last picture I took of my friend eleven days ago, he had an oxygen line running to his nose and he looked frail. He's not frail any more! I thank God for my friend coming to tell me of his being born again. It broke through a blindfold I had in my college days. I believed in God, but in a Deist way, as my beloved grandfather had believed. I knew nothing of being born again, like ol' Nic who came to Jesus at night, to ask Him what was up! (John 3)

[MHGinTN]

Thanks be to God, knarf IS born again! (I know you said it was 34 years ago, but with God all time is now)

[Mark17]

Each salvation experience is the same. The circumstances of yours and mine were different, but the ultimate end, is the same. I was in Germany during your experience. I had gotten saved in 1970, and got baptized by in the swimming pool at Bien Hoa Air Base, Republic of Vietnam. I had to come all the way back from Germany in 1983, for my dad. It took me 36 hours to get home. My dad died one hour after I got home. I had little or no confidence that he was where he really wanted to be. My parents almost had a semi funeral for me after I got saved by faith (oops, there’s that word again) so you can see where I did not have much confidence. I hope I am wrong, but like you, I cried too, not just because my dad died, but because I did not know if I would ever see him again. Later bro.

[metmom]

I don’t.

Other Catholics, however, disagree with you.

[metmom]

That would be a crude and flippant way of putting it, I think. It has nothing to do with "drift"; if one sins mortally, one KILLS the life of God within one's soul, and the Holy Spirit flees that place. He's too much of a gentlemen to stay where he's so obviously not wanted.

You have a weak God then, if your sin is greater than your god.

Sin does NOT kill the life of God in the soul and there's not one Scripture that even comes close to saying that.

On the contrary, where grace abounds, sin much more abounds and greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.

The Holy Spirit seals us until the day of redemption. Jesus promised to NEVER leave us or forsake us.

He knows our frame and remembers that we are dust. He doesn't throw us under the bus every time we sin.

The Holy Spirit doesn't *flee* anything.

And sinning doesn't mean we don't want God in us. It simply means that we're weak and sometimes give in to temptation that we shouldn't cave to.