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.
It is what the word of God says very plainly.
Matthew 7:
[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
2Peter 2:
[9] The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
[10] But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
[11] Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
[12] But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
[13] And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
[14] Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
[15] Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
[16] But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
[17] These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
[18] For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
[19] While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
[20] For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
[21] For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
[22] But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Hebrews 6:
[4] For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
[5] And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
[6] If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
To the end of our life, or the day of trumpets, whichever comes first.
Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again...Jesus says he must be born of water and of the Spirit...
So nah...We certainly know it isn't referring to baptism since born and water do not mean baptism...
So it refers to something else...Jesus is talking about two births...One of water and one of Spirit...Nicodemus understands the first birth (water) to be a normal, human birth...And so do I...
You have proved nothing, editor. Except the FACT that you’re getting your “doctrine” from Matthew and Hebrews. Both given to Israel. Neither of which have anything to do with this dispensation of grace we are living under. But you don’t believe that. You choose to cobble your beliefs from here and there, a snip from this verse and a paragraph from that book. The result being a gospel of nothingness, since Israel has been blinded and set aside, since Acts 28. And will be until the tribulation, when God once again deals with His favored nation. As long as you wallow in that gospel, you will remain lost and confused with who said what when and to whom and why. It MATTERS, you know. Otherwise, Paul would be sitting on a throne one day, along with Peter and the 11 and Christ. ....but we both know he won’t because there are only 12 tribes in Israel, not 13. right??...
The word "Bible" is not in the Bible either, but it is still the Word of God. I haven't seen anyone claim that because the word "Bible" isn't in the Bible, that it is discredited, but the law of averages tells me that some day I will. 🇵🇭😃😄😀🙉🙈🙊
Chief Small Voice makes valid points. Please respond nicely as you would to someone you really respect. Thank you.
I look for them to have this “Bible” epiphany at the same moment the Body of Christ is raptured. Of course they will mass-post to us that we’re wrong, they’re right, the word “Bible” isn’t in the Bible, they win. But we won’t be here to refute them...:)
Whatever you are trying to say, is not faintly Biblical.
It is not coherent because it speaks in error on very basic things.
Grace is for all time, until Yeshua returns, and is not related to any imaginary “dispensation.” It was for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and everyone else that has lived between them and us.
Israel has not been blinded, Judah has.
Read Matthew 15:24.
Yeshua came only for the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” If they are blinded, then we (you and me) are in deep trouble, because that is who we are.
That includes all who sojourn with them; always has. He came to save “the people for his name.” That is who will rise out of the grave, and from the Earth on the day of trumpets, and live and rule with him for 1000 years.
Small voice speaks dispy nonsense.
LOL! The law of averages ... will there be a Papal buycycle for that one? Like the law of indulgences?
We are NOT Israel. Period. End of conversation. This is why you cannot see past the Messianic Kingdom Gospel. You think you are Israel. Just what do you do with Romans through Philemon? It cannot be STUDY. Because if you DID, you would know, without a doubt, that YOU are NOT Israel.
Pretty nice; thanks.
e-s, not every Christian agrees with all your interpretations. Don’t force them down people’s throats. Present them and support them with Scriptural evidence.
But you’er not totally going to convince most Christians here of your particular views. And certainly not the RCs or LDS, I think.
HEY! I don’t appreciate you talking about me without pinging me. Very rude,editor. Now, how about answering this “nonsense” you say I speak: where does Paul fit into the Messianic Kingdom where Christ, Peter and the 11 are going to be sitting on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel? And what about Matthias, anyway? Have you found PROOF yet that the choice of Matthias was a human mistake and not accepted by God? I didn’t think so..
Have enjoyed and learn from your posts. Thank you for the efforts. I leave the Catholics to those with more knowledge than I.
I see, so it was his enemies who coined that slogan. That does not surprise me, but my opinion is, Luther probably never intended for there to be a "Lutheran" denomination. BTW, I have been to 3 different "Lutheran" churches. The only word I could think of, was icabod.
Maranatha! smvoice
God said the words were His. Nuff said.
So you would rather call it “The Word of Paul” rather than the word of God?
Thank you for the kind words. I am but one of millions of voices here at the end of the Church Age. ‘Things is about to pop, folks.’ In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye ... that’s fast!
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.