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.
How do the gathered Bishops select the next Pope?
See my comment at #681.
“God breathed” indicates the true source of “inspiration” (God). It doesn’t necessarily mean that Scripture is “God’s Dictation”.
And you know this how?
The the Holy Spirit Himself tell you how He inspired the authors of Scripture to write what they wrote?
Are you infallible in your understanding and interpretation of Scripture and how the Holy Spirit moves and works?
Where did you get your information from?
If you do not want to hear the word, that is not my affair, and no amount of reposting is likely to change that.
To whom were they written?
Hebrews was written to the dispersed descendants of northern Israel in general. Second Peter was also written to dispersed northern Israelites, but specifically in Asia Minor.
All of these are the people to whom Yeshua declared he was sent, in Matthew 15:24.
.
.
>> “How do the gathered Bishops select the next Pope?” <<
I haven’t the foggiest notion. Does it have any relevence at all?
Show me in scripture where the selection was a disobedient act by men and not of God. You cannot because it is not there. Word for word, it is not there. You fail to understand what I posted to you because you don’t CARE to see it. The post was simple and I know you cannot possibly be as SIMPLE as you seem. Now, according to the way you’ve showed me to establish falsehoods in any of your posts to me, I have detected a falsehood in your assessment of Matthias. Now, off you go..
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
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. 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.
The Gates of Hell open which way? ... And how is Peter opening those gates if he is the rock? I would offer humbly that the profession of Whom is Christ, the Son of the Living God is the rock of Salvation against which the gates of Hell cannot resist the escape of even the long dead faithers, such as Abraham.
In the Nicean Creed we read that Jesus descended into Hades, and led capticity captive. If Catholics believe in Pergatory, then the gates of that place cannot prevail against the profession of Whom Christ Is when God reveals it to the human heart, for it is His absolute authority. No institution of man can muster that kind of authority, brother. [And here I reference obliquely the questionable addition of 'binding' authority which so conveniently the Catholic Church claims to wear but which does not appear in the oldest manuscripts, IMS). Perhaps that is why the Catholic Church wishes to claim divine establishment of the institution?
Nothing in your post was simple nor organized.
I still cannot imagine what you wish to say, other than you like the idea of men doing God’s thinking for him.
How does any of it relate to post #517?
“If you do not want to hear the word, that is not my affair, and no amount of reposting is likely to change that.” A cutting remark, but thoroughly wrong. I have carefully posted for you many passages which support what I have shared with you. Shall I presume you have not read them because you don’t want to hear them? May it not be so ...
If you had actually posted them I would have read them, but you have never posted any scriptures that I have noticed.
Post them here with proper highlighting so it can be seen what you mean.
Then perhaps you should re-read your post 517. Everything is NOT the same as it always was. What was preached to Moses was NOT what Paul preached. What the 12 did was NOT the same as what Paul did. You’re told this over and over, from Romans through Philemon, even Peter speaks of some things that Paul wrote being “hard to understand”. Do you think he meant Paul had trouble verbalizing? uh, I don’t think so. He meant that the things Paul was writing were DIFFERENT than what Peter and the 11 taught. “Hard to understand”, get it?
If you'll pardon the interjection: if you'd only joined the Catholic Church, you wouldn't ever need to worry about belonging to a "works-based religion"; the Catholic Church condemned Pelagianism at the Council of Ephesus, over 1000 years before Luther was born.
LOL, the works based religion (WBR) I was in, WAS the Roman Catholic Church. MHG knew exactly what I meant. 😇😂😎 I am not into WBRs no matter if they think God saves 95% and they save 5% of themselves, and stop the Luther fixation. I am not positive what Luther believed and I don't follow him. I am sure Luther would roll over in his grave if he knew some people took his name and started a religious denomination with it. You can believe whatever you like. Have a nice eternity. Maybe I will see you at the pearly gates. 🇵🇭😃😀😄
I’m sorry you missed them. Some did not have the chapter and verse but were quoted accurately from the King James, going back just in the 630 range: posts # 631, 638, 646, 650, and 663.
Me-
Baptize means water???
You are the one who said water means baptize...And that is your proof that being born again includes baptism since the word water is in there...
Joh_3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
And now here you are back-peddling claiming water does not mean baptism...
You-
Er... no. Baptize means "baptize" (Gk: baptizein = "immerse, dip in water"); it's done WITH water. Just like "shower" doesn't mean "water"--it means "having water fall all over you, for the purpose of cleaning your body". Is this seriously new to you?
And being 'born' has nothing to do with baptism...'Born' is not baptism...
So now you clearly admit that there is no evidence of baptism in John 3:5...
And if scripture means anything to you at all, consider this:
Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
What it DOES NOT say is that the Holy Ghost will baptize you with water...
In one instance we are baptized (immersed) into water...In the other instance we are baptized (immersed) into the Holy Ghost (no water)...
Every time it says baptize/baptism in the scripture is no indication that water is always present...
'Born again' is the result of being baptized into the Holy Ghost...
“Salvation is not here yet. If you fail to endure to the end, you will not be among the saved at the day of trumpets.” You wrote that to eagleone, but since we have posted numerous posts with scripture reference to refute that error, but not to you specifically, I would respectfully draw your attention to posts #485, 505, 621, 656.
Really?
Instead of you using your own logic and common sense, perhaps you should see what the bible says about it...Oh, that's right, you guys don't believe God...
1Co 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
1Co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
So we can believe your common sense, or, we can believe God...
2Pe_1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Mat_5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
God approved of every word, including every and, if, by, to and ignorant...
What you think about it means nothing...
He was alive at the time when the Catholics named it Lutheranism in an attempt to discredit the same.
To the end of what???
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.