|
|
| Letters to a Roman Catholic : Part 6 - Salvation and the Pope |
In this discussion, Mr. Ernest Martinez responded to Mr. John Martignoni's e-mail (A Sixth Response - Mr. John Martignoni) to Mr. Edward Walker. Below is the discussion.
|
Salvation and the Pope - Mr. Ernest Martinez
|
John,
Before you get into trouble, think about what you are saying. You say you can do nothing to "effect your salvation," but that is not true. There are edicts that the RCC proclaims that if violated you can lose your salvation, that is "effecting" your salvation. Neither you or my dad have met my challenge to show me in the Bible where it teaches that Peter passed his office to a pope, that there was even a office of pope in the Bible or in the first century, or to show me historically that the RCC existed in the 1st century. With out that "authority" you can say anything else but it all meaningless. The burden of proof is not prayer or study, it is whether or you or any Roman Catholic can demonstrate from the Bible or history that the Apostles, or Peter founded the RCC. You seem to think because people do not agree with what the RCC teaches, that they can understand "what" they teach. You use a lot of emotion and statistical pleas, point in fact, many if not more have come from the RCC to all the denomations you just mentioned. That is a verifiable fact, which I could provide you with the stats if you want. You have not answered the fundemental question, where does authority come from. You say the RCC, the Mormons say their Church, the Muslims say from Muhamed, and they all claim "infallible authority." But the last time I checked the Bible only God has that position. You are a great debater and can wrangle over words and do the mirror and slieght of hand, but who is really decieved when you cannot even demonstrate why you believe what you believe. I know that is harsh, but you really haven't proved anything, or how the reading of Scripture brought you to the RCC. I agree you use the Bible to claim you came to the RCC from it, but honestly, the Bible doesn't even begin name the RCC, that is just assumption on your part. So be fair to your readers and tell them that the Bible does not teach that the RCC is the one Peter founded. It is no where in there, and you know that John. If you are going to be a Roman Catholic man up and just say that is what you believe because that is what you want to believe. You can talk about infalliable vs. falliable, and at the end of the day, when all is said and done, all you have is your word against every other religion and so called infalliable teachers.
Ernest
|
Salvation and the Pope: A Response - Mr. John Martignoni
Dear Pastor Martinez,
You are the one who needs to heed the advice to "think about what you are saying," as I have shown in the last few emails I've sent you. But I stand by what I say. You simply do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches, and you are not understanding what I'm saying. I am not saved by my works. I am saved by the grace of God. If, however, after I have been saved by God's grace, I do not do the will of God, I do not do what God calls me to do...what God wills me to do...then I can be responsible for losing my salvation. So, I cannot gain (effect) my salvation by what I do, but I can lose my salvation by what I do or don't do.
For example, if I do not forgive the sins of others, will I be saved? If I do not care for my family, will I be saved? If I do not keep the commandments, will I be saved? If I do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, will I be saved? If I commit murder, rape, theft, acts of homosexuality, etc., will I be saved?
If I do not deny myself and pick up my cross daily, will I be saved? If I do not do the will of God, will I be saved? If I do not strive for holiness, will I be saved?
With all due respect, Pastor Martinez, but your theology is not very well thought out. It is fraught with contradiction and it is only razor thin. Once one goes below the surface, it all starts falling apart.
Again, regarding the Pope. Was there a bishop in Rome, Pastor Martinez...yes or no? Was Peter the bishop in Rome at any point in time? The current Bishop of Rome can historically trace his office all the way back to Peter the Apostle. How far back can you trace your pastorate?
You tell me to "man up," but it seems to me that you are the one who is refusing to "man up," Pastor Martinez. I claim that I believe what I believe, because of the Bible. You claim that you believe what you believe because of the Bible. You claim that my understanding of the Bible is wrong, simply because it disagrees with yoru understanding of the Bible...no other reason!!! Prove to me that you have the authority to claim such a thing. Prove to me that you have any authority whatsoever from God. Prove to me that you have any guidance from the Holy Spirit whatsoever.
Are you fallible, Pastor Martinez? You have to say that, yes, you are fallible, because your fellow pastor, Eddie Walker, has already admitted as much. Do you believe in error, Pastor Martinez? You have to say, yes, that you believe in error, because your fellow pastor, Eddie Walker, has already admitted as much. Do you seek God, Pastor Martinez? You have to say, no, that you do not seek God, because your fellow pastor, Eddie Walker, has already admitted as much. Please "man up," Pastor Martinez, and tell me how being guided by the Holy Spirit, and having authority from "God Himself," is compatible with being fallible, believing in error, and not seeking God?
With all due respect, but your words are filled with contradictions. I claim that authority comes from God, through His Church, which is the Catholic Church. I can at least trace the history of the leadership of the Catholic Church back to the Apostles. Pastor Walker denies there is even such a thing as Apostolic Succession, so you cannot appeal the source of your authority to anything other than this: You claim it. My response: Big deal! Prove to me that you are guided by the Holy Spirit. If you were guided by the Holy Spirit, then you should be able to mop the floor with me. You should be able to show the lies and inconsistencies and contradictions in my words, but you can do no such thing.
Man up, Pastor Martinez, and answer my questions that I've presented in this email and the others.
God bless!
John Martignoni
|
Salvation and the Pope: A Response - Mr. Ernest Martinez
|
Dear John Martignoni,
I do not recall you showing me where I needed to “think about what” I was saying, at least not in the previous e-mail before this one. Ok, you “stand by what” you say. That’s good!
I have addressed many of the points you have brought up in this message, and since you sent several responses to my previous e-mails all at the same time, I may in fact be repeating what I have stated earlier, in previous e-mails. However, in all fairness to you and those who are reading our discussion, I will continue to address all of your arguments and statements in each of your e-mails. With that being said, I will address the points you brought up in this e-mail.
You say in this e-mail, as you have stated elsewhere, that I don’t understand what the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) teaches and that I don’t understand what you are saying. And what is the cause of that belief? Because you think I believe that you are saying that the RCC teaches that your works saves you. What is interesting about your statement “I am not saved by my works,” is that you contradict yourself in a very fundamental way.
You state:
“I am saved by the grace of God. If, however, after I have been saved by God's grace, I do not do the will of God, I do not do what God calls me to do...what God wills me to do...then I can be responsible for losing my salvation. So, I cannot gain (effect) my salvation by what I do, but I can lose my salvation by what I do or don't do.”
The Council of Trent makes two diametrically opposing pronouncements and yet neither they saw nor do you see the contradiction. On the one hand it teaches that you are not saved by works, however, it also says that you are not saved apart from them. To the unskilled and uninitiated it would seem that what they were pronouncing was that works come from faith, however, that is not what they meant and not what you believe, right? Are you saying that works produce faith? Yes or no? If you say works produce faith, then you are not saved by faith but by works. If you say no, then faith produces works, just as James taught. Can faith come at the same time as works? Yes or no? Is faith a work? Yes or no? If faith is a work, then doesn’t mean that your works saves you? Yes or no? You state quite emphatically that you are not saved by works but by the grace of God. But the Bible is clear that you are saved by “grace through faith.” So when you say you are saved by grace, that is a true statement. However, the issue is not about grace, but faith. What it is and how it “effects” your salvation. You also state that you can lose your salvation if you do not continue doing good works. You also stated that Baptism saves you and is a work. So do works save you? Yes or no?
You keep coming to James for your proof texts and give your interpretation of the RCC’s interpretation of James in regard to works and faith. You would have to agree that you are interpreting the so-called infallible interpretation of the RCC would you not? You stated in a previous radio broadcast that everyone interprets the “words” of the Bible and they cannot interpret correctly if they do not have an infallible guide to infallibly interpret for them. So, being fallible, how do you know your interpretation of the RCC’s teaching is correct? What is your interpretation, or more specifically, what is your interpretation of the RCC’s interpretation of Ephesians 2:8 – 9? Paul makes it clear that “we are not saved by works.” You will say, “that is what I said and believe, I am saved by grace and not by works.” Ok, if you are not saved by works, but by grace, then are you affirming that we are saved by grace alone? Yes or no? Does faith save us? Yes or no? And if you say that works “with” faith save us, then aren’t you saying works save us? Yes or no? But you said works don’t save us, so which is it, do they or do they not save us? I will be interested how you will answer that.
You say that you cannot “gain (effect)” your “salvation by what” you do, i.e. works, but you can lose your salvation by what you do. Let’s start with the first proposition that you cannot “gain” your salvation by what you do. Aren’t you saying that it is by “faith alone” by “grace alone” that you are saved? When a protestant (one who has an understanding of said doctrine) says “faith alone” by “grace alone,” what they are saying, as Paul taught in Ephesians, is that faith comes as a result of grace. You are saved only by faith, and the principal agent through which that comes is through God’s grace, which is a result of God’s love. That is why love is the greatest among the three, faith, hope and love, the greatest being love, because of God’s love he gives freely of His grace, which, when appropriated, produces faith. Why doesn’t Paul say, as you affirm, that “there are four which remain, works, faith, hope and love, the greatest is love?” Why didn’t Paul make it more clear? Of course you will say, “he did make it clear, it is what we teach and believe, you just don’t understand because you don’t have an infallible guide.”
You go on to say:
“For example, if I do not forgive the sins of others, will I be saved? If I do not care for my family, will I be saved? If I do not keep the commandments, will I be saved? If I do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, will I be saved? If I commit murder, rape, theft, acts of homosexuality, etc., will I be saved? If I do not deny myself and pick up my cross daily, will I be saved? If I do not do the will of God, will I be saved? If I do not strive for holiness, will I be saved?”
Like the Pharisees said, and it seems you are saying, that you do all those things. But the Bible also says if you fail in one area of the Law that you are guilty of it all. If you are saying that you can do all those things perfectly then I would say you are fooling yourself. And the Bible is clear that God demands perfection. That is the reason Jesus came and died for us because we were dead in our trespasses, unable to obey the Law (see Romans), and Paul goes on to say that the Law cannot save us.
You go on to say:
“With all due respect, Pastor Martinez, but your theology is not very well thought out. It is fraught with contradiction and it is only razor thin. Once one goes below the surface, it all starts falling apart.”
I have yet to see where you can show my theology is “not very well thought out.” Are you saying that because the conclusions I have come to don't jibe with your conclusions about the RCC? You may not like my “theology,” but I have demonstrated how I thought through my “theology” and I can assure you it is well thought out. When I became a Christian I still did not have any real objections to the RCC. In fact, the reason I began to study the RCC and its teachings was to see if the faith my dad had was in fact one based on the Holy Scriptures. What I found I was a religious system wrought with inconsistencies and flaws. I could not resolve the teaching of the RCC with the Bible. I know you think you have shown the “contradictions” in my theology and doctrine, but an honest observer will note that I have more than shown the validity of my theology and doctrine.
Thirdly you state:
“Again, regarding the Pope. Was there a bishop in Rome, Pastor Martinez...yes or no? Was Peter the bishop in Rome at any point in time? The current Bishop of Rome can historically trace his office all the way back to Peter the Apostle. How far back can you trace your pastorate? “
Yes, regarding the Pope, a very interesting topic, because my challenge to you was to show undeniable proof that Peter was the “known” primary leader of the church, was called Bishop of Rome, and any documents related to this “known fact” in any of the Church Fathers. Was there a Bishop in Rome? Yes, quite a few in fact. Paul’s specific task to Titus (Titus 1:5) was to appoint elders in every city, the operating word “elders (presbuteros),” plural. Peter refers to the “bishops” as “elders (presbuteros)” and himself a “co-elder” (sumpresbuteros). The office of “elder” and “bishop” were one in the same, the authors of the Scriptures using them interchangeably. Case in point, when Paul gives the requirements in selecting an elder he uses the word “episcope” which can be translated “bishop” or “elder.” Elsewhere Paul uses “presbuteros” in reference to “elders” who rule well (1 Tim. 5:17). The main function of these men is to “rule” the church, or more importantly, to minister and serve the Church and proclaim God’s truth so that the flock may be fed. If you say that the office of “presbuteros” and “episcope” are two different offices, then you have a major problem because Peter does not identify himself as a Bishop (episcope) but as an Elder (presbuteros). When Paul writes about Peter he does not identify him as a Bishop. In fact when Paul writes to the Roman Church, Peter’s name is not mentioned, not a slight oversight on Paul’s part if in fact Peter was the only Bishop of Rome. In the 16th chapter of Romans Paul lists all sorts of men and women in Rome and yet fails to mention Peter, the supposed Bishop of Rome. If Peter was in fact in Rome or was the Bishop of Rome, wouldn’t Paul have greeted him or at least mentioned him. The answer would have to be yes. How far I can trace my pastorate is inconsequential. It is the RCC who say this is a criteria for true authority and authenticity of a Church or its leaders. I see nowhere where this was a requirement for a true church or requirement for an elder. Paul makes no mention of it and neither do any of the other writers of Scriptures.
Let’s make something perfectly clear so there can be no doubt, when I say your understanding of the Bible is wrong, I do not say that because it disagrees with my understanding of the Bible but I believe it either goes against what is written or is not found anywhere in Scriptures. There is a major difference between you and I disagreeing about something the Bible actually says and it is an entirely different matter when we disagree on what is not found in the Bible. The RCC's doctrine of the assumption of Mary is one of those “disagreements.” You can show me your doctrine but you cannot specifically show where it is found in the pages of Scriptures. And what is your response, “it is because of Church tradition that I believe it so.” And why do you believe in RCC tradition? Because the RCC is the “infallible authority” which, according to the tradition they themselves have declared, gives them the “infallible authority” to declare tradition. Do you not see the paradox in your thinking? If the Bible is not the source of the RCC’s “infallible authority” and never has been as you have so boldly declared, then RCC tradition is the source of their own “infallible authority” to which they declare their own doctrine of “infallible authority.” And round and round we go.
I have previously answered your questions about infallibility and where my authority comes from and whether or not I believe I am led by the Holy Spirit from so I will not address that here. I have shown elsewhere where someone like Peter could get something right about Jesus, being led by the Holy Spirit and then get it wrong about Jesus’ mission, being led by Satan.
You say that my “words are filled with contradictions.” If they are, then show me.
You say:
“With all due respect, but your words are filled with contradictions. I claim that authority comes from God, through His Church, which is the Catholic Church. I can at least trace the history of the leadership of the Catholic Church back to the Apostles. Pastor Walker denies there is even such a thing as Apostolic Succession, so you cannot appeal the source of your authority to anything other than this: You claim it. My response: Big deal! Prove to me that you are guided by the Holy Spirit. If you were guided by the Holy Spirit, then you should be able to mop the floor with me. You should be able to show the lies and inconsistencies and contradictions in my words, but you can do no such thing.”
Ok, so you say that authority comes from God. Ok, I am with you on that. Authority does indeed come from God. You say it comes from the RCC, and there we are at odds, because I believe authority, true authority, comes from God through His Word, the Scriptures. In fact, the Bible is clear that God’s word is above all else.
Psalms 138:2
“I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.
You say you can trace the history of the leadership of the RCC back to the Apostles. First, as you have said and I use your words: my response: Big deal! Second, show me the document showing Peter as the Bishop of Rome and the document transferring his Bishopric to anyone else. It is interesting that the RCC has documents of transfer from one pope to the next, but not when it comes to Peter, why is that?
You say that I should be able to “mop up the floor” with you if I am guided by the Holy Spirit. Two things, first, even Jesus, being God Himself, was not able to “mop up the floor” with the Pharisees. Oh, he may have, but they didn’t believe it. Second, even if someone was led by the Holy Spirit does not mean they could convince everyone. Certainly even the RCC has not been able to convince everyone of their “infallible authority.” And to someone, like a Mormon, who did not want the truth would simply say that their “infallible” church says what is true and what is not. So I would not be able to convince them otherwise.
To sum up, the RCC has developed the standard for which they believe makes a true church. And you stand by that. But I don’t agree with your conclusions. I don’t believe that just because I am led by the Holy Spirit means I can never sin. Does the pope sin? Isn’t sin error? So how can someone who is infallible make a mistake or sin? Does the Holy Spirit make errors or sin? Yes or no? So infallibility is not a true test to see whether or not someone is led by the Holy Spirit. Those are your conclusions, not mine, and not those of the Holy Bible. Do I have the authority to make the claims I am making? Of course I do. To illustrate my point, take a Math Professor for example. This man knows many things about mathematics and the subtleties of quantum mechanics and can do circles around any freshman college student. But let’s say the math professor didn’t really study up on chapter two of the required text book in his class. And while his class was going over the principles found in chapter 2 he made a mistake. When a student pointed out the error, could the professor claim that he was the authority and could fail that student? Surely he could. And perhaps he did fail the student, but that does not mean he didn’t err. Could someone come to him and show him his error from the text book? They could, although that does not mean he is obliged to listen to correction. In fact, what if he taught, not only was not taught in that text book, but something completely made up by the professor through conjecture and arrogance. Would the student be wrong or the Professor? I believe any honest person would say the professor was wrong. You may say, “but that is the student’s interpretation of the text.” But what if what was written said, “In quantum mechanics, it refers to a discrete unit that quantum theory assigns to certain physical quantities, such as the energy of an atom at rest.” And yet the professor said, “in quantum mechanics the theory assigns certain physical quantities, such as the energy of an atom.” The student then says, “but the text says atoms at rest.” And the professor says, “your interpreting that wrong, I am the professor here, I know more than you do and I have two doctorates in mathematics, so I am right.” Again, would the professor really be right because the student didn’t interpret correctly? Or could it be as plain as it seems? I think it really is that simple John.
Peace and Grace,
Ernest
| |
|
| Posted on Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:57 am by accesservant |
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
Air Jordan XII Reduced 'Taxi' a 2011 Retro A memorable well-known sneakers (Score: 1)
by miin on Fri May 27, 2011 7:57 am
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.watchesbook.com | | for the coloration from the casing, the reproduction Rolex on the internet has obtained everything perfect even towards the minute particulars within the dial. At occasions, the manufacturers from the originals attempt to obtain 1 far better by altering some good details in their well known makes. Within a number of days the particulars of replica Rolex on the web too get altered. Why deny the youth of their love of replica Rolex watches They are aware that they can't pay for to go in for several Rolex watches, but when one sees the prices of replica Rolex online, they'll find out that even a casual consumer may well quickly buy a few unique types. Whilst it is actually accurate that renowned personalities like film stars and wealthy tycoons will never look for replica Rolex on the net, the fact is that the |
|
|
 |
| |
Article Rating |
|
|
Average Score: 1
Votes: 3
|
|
|
|
|
