|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/23/2009 6:58:14 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
His son Richard is naturally well off... ...there is no such thing...
LOL - are you joking?
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/24/2009 1:26:11 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5082
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
Kelman,
quote:
I can proudly say I've never read a Left Behind book. But, otoh, I wouldn't be so quick to mock a soon return of Christ as you seem to be.
Not mocking the return of Christ, just the evangelical take on it. There isn't a singular Christian "take on it"....there are a number of varying views concerning eschatology.
quote:
quote:
I can proudly say I've never read a Left Behind book.
Why? According to the author's it's based straight from scripture. Is it?...I understood it to be a fictionalized account. So, obviously I'm sure "poetic license" was employed. I won't watch so called "Christian" movies or read books where "poetic license" is employed. Frankly, they're simply lies since they incorporate their own extra-biblical themes right along with inspired truth.
quote:
Oh, maybe your a mid trib, or post tribber. Nope.
quote:
Then again, without a final authority, all you can do is guess. LOL...your final authority doesn't offer much of anything very "official" on the matter....doesn't make him much of an authority, now does it? Actually, RC has commented "officially" on very little within the Bible.
So, where's that leave you?...one whole book of the Bible and parts of many other biblical books...what?....up for grabs?....or just ignored?
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/25/2009 9:07:19 PM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
There isn't a singular Christian "take on it"....there are a number of varying views concerning eschatology.
If the Bible was meant to be a Christian's sole authority, shouldn't there be only one?
quote:
LOL...your final authority doesn't offer much of anything very "official" on the matter....doesn't make him much of an authority, now does it? Actually, RC has commented "officially" on very little within the Bible.
And yet the majority of posts opposing the idea of a papacy seem to all imply the Pope being some sort of tyrant, "lording" over his flock, keeping Catholics away from the "truth" of scripture, assuring Catholics can't think for themselves. Very ironic.
So, what is it really about the papacy that causes you so much trouble? (other than the funny hat and all)
Peace
_____________________________
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/26/2009 3:51:53 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 341
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
TFan - No, it does not. I've already addressed this above, and you don't seem to spend much of your time actually interacting with those comments.
I’ve addressed them. I’ve given the text that shows precisely why Paul and Barnabas were sent to visit the leadership of the universal church. For all the posting and highlighting you’ve done, you haven’t really shown anything that shows they went to “track down the source of the error”. All you’ve done is the very thing you accused me of in a previous post.
If you have a particular question you feel I’ve left unaddressed, please repeat it CLEARLY and I will answer. Even if it’s “irrelevant” or “personal” or a “red herring”.
quote:
To take but one example "settle" is not in the text. Furthermore, the specific sense of "settle" that you have in mind is not supported by the text, although perhaps some more general sense could be supported.
And now you are playing semantics games with the meaning of “settle” vs. “to consider the matter” and “about this question”. All you are doing is attempting to diffuse what is clear from scripture with eisegetical obfuscation.
quote:
I think it worth noting that one text of Acts from about A.D. 400 (Codex Bezae) provides the following version of the issue: ....
What exactly are you trying to prove by quoting from this? The Church of Antioch was infiltrated by Judaizers and the leaders must have accepted the teaching else there would have been no dispute with Paul and Barnabas. We certainly see no evidence whatsoever that anyone, elders included, sided with P & B. So yes, the Judaizers, who happened to also be elders, sent P & B. I don’t get your point.
But if you want to quote from this source, let’s not forget the other text that you failed to highlight:
“ … to go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders that they might be judged before them about this question.”
And I believe that Chrysostom has a bit to say along the lines of this council being an ecclesial court modeled (not surprisingly) after a Jewish court, complete with witnesses and AUTHORITY (gasp!). You can check out the very first sentence of homily 33 and read on where he talks about the authority of the bishops.
And we might as well look at the codex in Acts 15:11-12 just after Peter gives testimony to what the Holy Spirit revealed to him in Acts 11:15-17:
Acts 15:11f “But through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe that we shall be saved in like manner as they. And the elders agreed to what had been spoken by Peter: and all the multitude kept silence;”
The Holy Spirit speaks through the leader of the Apostles and the debate is over. Paul and Barnabas provide experiential witness (providing more than the required 2 witness minimum), and James, leader of the Church in Jerusalem, announces the verdict of the ecclesial court.
quote:
No one denied that there was a dispute. No one denied that this dispute implicated doctrines in some way. Those are not the issues.
What are the issues then in your mind? Where the false teaching was coming from? We know it was from Jerusalem and no one (then or now) is arguing this. Paul adamantly argued his position to no avail. What is your definition of “settle” in this context?
quote:
… "resort to an appellate court" or something like that (which is not what was going on).
I disagree and it appears Chrysostom does also. The Jewish Apostles and elders were carrying out an ecclesial court (testimony, witnesses, authority …) to the extent possible under the persecution they were experiencing. The council has all of the characteristics of a Jewish court, but in this case, it is the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter (Ac 11:15f), that is providing the testimony.
quote:
At this point I'd ordinarily point you to Chrysostom's homilies on Acts, but he breezes through this section without much comment of interest to our debate …. Arator … Bede … [unrelated plug to your web-site] …. [excuses about non-existent Reformed views] …
Okay … So Chrysostom doesn’t support your view (instead I believe he opposes it) …. And neither does Arator …. And neither does Bede … So let’s fast-forward 1500+ years. Which of the “Reformed variety” of commentators support your view? I’ll probably take a quick glance at them but I don’t think you will be able to find anything supporting your view.
Here’s a little excerpt from Chrysostom (Homily 32) that, according to you is not "of interest to our debate"….
“It is well ordered too, that this happens when Paul is present, that he may answer them. “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” (v. 2). And Paul does not say, What? Have I not a right to be believed after so many signs? but he complied for their sakes.”
So I’d have to say that it appears Chrysostom believes Paul consented to going to Jerusalem to settle (yes, as in an ecclesial court setting) a doctrinal issue, not “to track down the source of the error”.
quote:
Is this attack on the red herring of extreme congregationalism becoming a dead horse as well? Give it a rest, please.
The “attack” is not a red herring. It is important to understand the proper ecclesial model of the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, that Jesus and the Apostles established.
quote:
I gladly concede that extreme congregationalism is wrong
And can you distinguish for us “extreme congregationalism” and not-so-extreme congregationalism? Because this too is very relevant to the need for an earthly leader of the universal church. Is it your assertion that “extreme congregationalism” is unbiblical? (And would you be willing to oppose "extreme congregationalists" with the same fervor you do with the Catholic Church?) What about not-so-extreme congregationalism? Where is the distinction drawn? Who gets to decide? What if the decision makers can’t come to agreement?
quote:
These councils? Where is the second one? … If there is any other "council" in Scripture, you haven't brought it to our attention.
I’m sure you’re well aware that the Council of Jerusalem is the only council recorded in scripture. If you want to take for granted the various ecumenical councils since then (seven of which most Protestants profess to accept) that is your prerogative. But do you believe the decisions made in Jerusalem were inspired by the Holy Spirit (Ac 11:15f)? Do you believe the decision was infallible? What makes it infallible – because it was based on the witness of Paul? Well the Church in Antioch didn’t seem to accept what Paul and Barnabas were saying. Is it infallible because it is recorded in sacred scripture? The Church in Antioch received an apostolic letter which I’m certain they didn’t believe at the time was sacred scripture. Were the findings of the Council of Jerusalem infallible because they are recorded in scripture or because they came from the Pillar and Foundation of Truth? The Church in Antioch accepted the findings with great joy because it was settled by the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. You may believe the Pillar and Foundation of Truth died off with the last apostle, but I believe the gates of hell will never prevail against it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/26/2009 4:16:02 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 341
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
LOL...your final authority doesn't offer much of anything very "official" on the matter....doesn't make him much of an authority, now does it? Actually, RC has commented "officially" on very little within the Bible.
So, where's that leave you?...one whole book of the Bible and parts of many other biblical books...what?....up for grabs?....or just ignored?
The teachings of the Catholic Church are not based on any one person. They are based on scripture and the collective teachings of the 2000 year existence of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (an "official" document) contains scriptural citations directly, as footnotes, and in an index in the back of the book. There are citations from nearly every book totalling well over 2,000. And yes, there are sections on eschatology.
There are also plenty of citations spanning the 2000 year history of the church including citations from the Early Church Fathers and from the various Church Councils (seven of which most Protestants profess to accept)
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/26/2009 8:05:02 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2 quote:
There isn't a singular Christian "take on it"....there are a number of varying views concerning eschatology. If the Bible was meant to be a Christian's sole authority, shouldn't there be only one? The answer to that question is obviously "no." And those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. There are lots of things where there are more than view within Catholicism. So, unless you are willing to reject Catholicism on the basis of multiple views about things, you cannot legitimately reject Sola Scriptura on that basis.
quote:
quote:
LOL...your final authority doesn't offer much of anything very "official" on the matter....doesn't make him much of an authority, now does it? Actually, RC has commented "officially" on very little within the Bible. And yet the majority of posts opposing the idea of a papacy seem to all imply the Pope being some sort of tyrant, "lording" over his flock, keeping Catholics away from the "truth" of scripture, assuring Catholics can't think for themselves. Very ironic. Yes it is ironic - it's ironic that we are told that we cannot interpret Scripture reliably on our own, but the popes have "infallibly" interpreted hardly any verses (maybe 12 depending on who you ask) over the allegedly nearly 2000 years that they have been around.
But to get back to your claim. It is both true that:
1) Roman Catholics are not permitted to disagree with ex cathedra papal statements, no matter how ridiculous those claims are; and
2) At the same time, a number of those very rare exercises of that alleged papal power are on trivial thinks like the Marian dogmas, while the popes fail to actually exercise their supposed power for the benefit of the people.
That is to say, the pope demands assent and doesn't actually offer anything of value in return. Is it ironic? Yes, and sad too.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/26/2009 10:36:30 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher quote:
TFan - No, it does not. I've already addressed this above, and you don't seem to spend much of your time actually interacting with those comments. I’ve addressed them. I’ve given the text that shows precisely why Paul and Barnabas were sent to visit the leadership of the universal church. If you think that "addressed" my comments, then you and I have very different concepts of what constitutes responding to what other people say. C'est la vie. I cannot force you to interact with my arguments.
quote:
For all the posting and highlighting you’ve done, you haven’t really shown anything that shows they went to “track down the source of the error”. All you’ve done is the very thing you accused me of in a previous post. Well, if you actually read and responded to my comments, you wouldn't think that. Again, however, I cannot force you to do that.
quote:
If you have a particular question you feel I’ve left unaddressed, please repeat it CLEARLY and I will answer. Even if it’s “irrelevant” or “personal” or a “red herring”. See my previous post where I demonstrated from Scripture that they went back to Jerusalem because that's where the Judaizers came from. Deal with that post, if you can, rather than trying to deal with a soundbite summary. If I wanted to provide a soundbite summary, I'd do that. I don't.
quote:
quote:
To take but one example "settle" is not in the text. Furthermore, the specific sense of "settle" that you have in mind is not supported by the text, although perhaps some more general sense could be supported. And now you are playing semantics games with the meaning of “settle” vs. “to consider the matter” and “about this question”. Nope. I'm pointing out the semantic game that you are playing, sir. Don't put your issues on me.
quote:
All you are doing is attempting to diffuse what is clear from scripture with eisegetical obfuscation.  Your failure to show any exegetical errors demonstrates that this is just hot air from you. I'm thankful for your confirmation of the perspicuity of Scripture against your co-religionists in the sola scriptura discussions.
quote:
quote:
I think it worth noting that one text of Acts from about A.D. 400 (Codex Bezae) provides the following version of the issue: .... What exactly are you trying to prove by quoting from this? The Church of Antioch was infiltrated by Judaizers and the leaders must have accepted the teaching else there would have been no dispute with Paul and Barnabas. We certainly see no evidence whatsoever that anyone, elders included, sided with P & B. So yes, the Judaizers, who happened to also be elders, sent P & B. I don’t get your point. Oh, where does it say that Judaizers also happened to be elders? Did you just make that up to try to bolster your case?
quote:
But if you want to quote from this source, let’s not forget the other text that you failed to highlight:
“ … to go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders that they might be judged before them about this question.”
And I believe that Chrysostom has a bit to say along the lines of this council being an ecclesial court modeled (not surprisingly) after a Jewish court, complete with witnesses and AUTHORITY (gasp!). You can check out the very first sentence of homily 33 and read on where he talks about the authority of the bishops. So, has your position changed from them going to settle a doctrinal matter to Paul and Barnabas being judged in a court? Notice that it says "they might be judged" not "the doctrines might be judged." I doubt you're trying to change your position to fit the evidence. Looks more like you're just latching onto whatever you think contradicts what I said, rather than actually trying to present a coherent case of your own.
As for it being a court, no doubt it was treated that way. No one from our side is suggesting otherwise. And I know this will come as a shocker to you, but the Reformed churches teach that elders have authority.
So, I'm not too worried that the codex and/or Chrysostom have any significant disagreement with me about this text. But lets just say that Chrysostom and the codex disagreed with my view - while also disagreeing so plainly (as I have shown) with your view? What should we make of that? Where does that leave you?
But let's look at the beginning of Homily 33:
"This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16) But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul."
Chrysostom is absolutely crushing to your position. He continues:
"And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion."
Notice how he points out that both Peter and Paul were not "intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem" and that is James who serves as the teacher for the meeting. But that's not the only way he lays waste to your claims, for he continues:
"(b) "Men and brethren," he says, "hearken unto me." Great is the moderation of the man. His also is a more complete oration, as indeed it puts the completion to the matter under discussion. (a) "Symeon," he says, "declared:" (namely,) in Luke, in that he prophesied, "Which You have prepared before the face of all nations, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel." (c) "How God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name." (Luke 2:25)"
Notice that Chrysostom views the "Simeon" in this text not as Simon Peter but as Simeon who was the prophet in the temple when Jesus was first brought there. This is not an unreasonable interpretation of the text, although I'm not sure its the best one. What is interesting is that he views James as appealing to the authority of a prophet (and perhaps even to the recently-penned Gospel of Luke), but not the authority of the apostles at this particular council, and certainly not to any authority of Peter. What you seem to think so perfectly clear was apparently obfuscated to Chrysostom (will you also falsely accuse him of "attempting to diffuse what is clear from scripture with eisegetical obfuscation"? I would hope shame would prevent you from doing that). But Chrysostom's decimation of your position is not over, for he continues:
"Then, since that (witness), though from the time indeed he was manifest, yet had not authority by reason of his not being ancient, therefore he produces ancient prophecy also, saying, "And to this agree the words of the Prophets, as it is written: After this I wilt return, and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up." (Acts 15:16) What? Was Jerusalem raised up? Was it not rather thrown down? What sort of raising up does he call that which took place after the return from Babylon? "That the residue of men," he says, "may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles upon whom My Name is called." (Acts 15:17) Then, what makes his word authoritative— "Says the Lord, which does all these things:" and, for that this is no new thing, but all was planned from the beginning, "Known unto God are all His works from everlasting." (Acts 15:18)"
Notice that Chrysostom basically says that even the authority of the true prophet Simeon was less than the authority of the ancient prophecy in Scripture, and notice as well that the authority of Scripture is "what makes his (James') word authoritative. Not a separate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but the backing of the Word of God written down long ago. Now, we get to the part where you would seem to think we'd be uncomfortable, but it too undermines your case:
"And then again his authority (καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα πάλιν) (as Bishop): "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." (Acts 15:19-21) Since then they had heard of the Law, with good reason he enjoins these things from the Law, that he may not seem to make it of no authority. And (yet) observe how he does not let them be told these things from the Law, but from himself, saying, It is not that I heard these things from the Law, but how? "We have judged.""
Notice how at first you see that he is relying on his authority (which is what might make you think we'd be uncomfortable) but then he goes on to emphasize that James got these things "from the Law" that is to say, from the Scriptures of the Old Testament. The old prophets that Chrysostom mentioned above.
We could go and on, pointing out how Chrysostom viewed James as having higher authority than Peter etc. But what is the point? Will you really accept the authority of the tradition of Chrysostom? I think not - just as you reject the plain teaching of Scripture, you'll reject the plain teaching of Chrysostom, to make manifest that your rule of faith is neither Scripture nor Tradition, but your own church.
quote:
And we might as well look at the codex in Acts 15:11-12 just after Peter gives testimony to what the Holy Spirit revealed to him in Acts 11:15-17:
Acts 15:11f “But through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe that we shall be saved in like manner as they. And the elders agreed to what had been spoken by Peter: and all the multitude kept silence;” Perhaps you thought that I believed the elders disagreed? Perhaps that was your reason for highlighting this text? I hope not. So, again, there's nothing here that disagrees with what I've said.
quote:
The Holy Spirit speaks through the leader of the Apostles and the debate is over. This is wrong for so many reasons:
1) The leader of the Apostles was Jesus, not one of the apostles.
2) The president of the meeting of the Apostles on this occasion was (both plainly from the text, as well as explicitly from Chrysostom) James not Peter.
3) Although it may well be that everyone agreed with Peter's statement, the discussion was not over. According to the rest of the sentence, which you so conveniently omitted from your quotation, "and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them."
4) Moreover, even after that James spoke and relied not on the authority of Peter but on the authority of Scripture to answer the matter.
5) There is nothing in the text that says the Holy Spirit was speaking through Peter. You just imposed that on the text through your preconceptions. That's what we call "eisegetical obfuscation" (to apply your false accusation in a legitimate context).
quote:
Paul and Barnabas provide experiential witness (providing more than the required 2 witness minimum), and James, leader of the Church in Jerusalem, announces the verdict of the ecclesial court. If this were a court, and if Peter were only the first witness, and if - as you seem to suggest - two witnesses are needed. Then it is clear that it would have been improper for the debate to have ended on Peter's testimony. As well, it would be the height of absurdity to suppose that the evidence was presented simply to rubber-stamp a two-witness requirement after the decision had been made - and it would seem to border on blasphemous to suppose that an inspired oratory by Peter (according to your claim above) would require human testimony to be valid.
And James does not say "the verdict of this court" or "the verdict of Peter" or even "the verdict of the apostles" but "my judgment." Now, that his judgment was accepted by the apostles, elders, and brethren at Jerusalem was clear. Furthermore, when James refers to what Peter said, he refers specifically to his testimony "how first God did visit the Gentiles," not to any claim of authority by Peter.
quote:
quote:
No one denied that there was a dispute. No one denied that this dispute implicated doctrines in some way. Those are not the issues. What are the issues then in your mind? See above.
quote:
Where the false teaching was coming from? We know it was from Jerusalem and no one (then or now) is arguing this. Actually, the Judaizers at Antioch claimed that they had the authority of the Jerusalem church for their teachings. That's why Paul and Barnabas were referred there, as we've already proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
quote:
Paul adamantly argued his position to no avail. What is your definition of “settle” in this context? I'm curious what makes you think that Paul's argument was adamant and to no avail. By the time the apostles met in Jerusalem, Peter had already been won over to Paul's side, despite Paul having earlier had to correct Peter. Chrysostom points out that Paul could have insisted more strongly and did not: "And Paul does not say, What? Have I not a right to be believed after so many signs? But he complied for their sakes." (Homily 32)
quote:
quote:
… "resort to an appellate court" or something like that (which is not what was going on). I disagree and it appears Chrysostom does also. The Jewish Apostles and elders were carrying out an ecclesial court (testimony, witnesses, authority …) to the extent possible under the persecution they were experiencing. The council has all of the characteristics of a Jewish court, but in this case, it is the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter (Ac 11:15f), that is providing the testimony. Court, perhaps. Appellate court, no. Read carefully and you'll avoid arguing against points I haven't raised.
quote:
quote:
At this point I'd ordinarily point you to Chrysostom's homilies on Acts, but he breezes through this section without much comment of interest to our debate …. Arator … Bede … [unrelated plug to your web-site] …. [excuses about non-existent Reformed views] … Excuses? Oh, please ... The plug wasn't entirely unrelated ... it showed that, unlike you, I've actually bothered to track down what tradition has to say about this passage - which is interesting, because your church claims to have a higher regard for tradition than mine does.
quote:
Okay … So Chrysostom doesn’t support your view (instead I believe he opposes it) …. So you assert, but it is actually the other way around. He not only supports my position, as I've shown, but even where he differs, it is over relatively minor points that have nothing to do with our discussion. On the other hand, he powerfully undermines your central thesis.
quote:
And neither does Arator …. I'm 9.9999% sure you haven't read Arator. My reason for not quoting him is not that he doesn't support my position, but that he doesn't engage in anything like proper exegesis of the text. If you think he somehow supports your position, please feel free to quote from him, if you've actually read him. Have you actually read him, or were you just blustering?
quote:
And neither does Bede … This is ridiculous. Again, I seriously doubt you've bothered to read Bede (beyond - one hopes - the portion of Bede for which I provided a translation on my web site). Furthermore, as I pointed out previously, he does support my position.
quote:
So let’s fast-forward 1500+ years. Your numbers are a bit odd here. I suppose you picked 1500 because you figure that the Reformation started with Luther in the early part of the 15000's. Of course, that's not even a full 1500 years after the Bible was completed, and it is much less than that between Bede (the latest of the traditional sources I referenced) and Luther.
quote:
Which of the “Reformed variety” of commentators support your view? I’ll probably take a quick glance at them but I don’t think you will be able to find anything supporting your view. If you don't accept Scripture or pre-Luther tradition, you're certainly not going to accept something because a Reformed author said it.
quote:
Here’s a little excerpt from Chrysostom (Homily 32) that, according to you is not "of interest to our debate"….
“It is well ordered too, that this happens when Paul is present, that he may answer them. “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” (v. 2). And Paul does not say, What? Have I not a right to be believed after so many signs? but he complied for their sakes.”
So I’d have to say that it appears Chrysostom believes Paul consented to going to Jerusalem to settle (yes, as in an ecclesial court setting) a doctrinal issue, not “to track down the source of the error”. As noted above, this quotation conflicts with another of your arguments. But, let's deal with your claims here. You claim that it says something about settling in an ecclesial (sic) court setting, but Chrysostom does not say that. All that is indicated here is that they want to investigate the matter further. That portion of his comment is consistent both with my position and with your position. In other words, it's not particularly of interest to our debate (although it became of interest when you tried to claim that Paul was adamant).
quote:
quote:
Is this attack on the red herring of extreme congregationalism becoming a dead horse as well? Give it a rest, please. The “attack” is not a red herring. It is important to understand the proper ecclesial model of the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, that Jesus and the Apostles established. Well, and here we finally get back to the topic of this thread, to the extent you are looking at Acts 15 for that purpose, you won't find a pope in the model. So, perhaps you're willing to accept Acts 15 for the purpose you are presenting it and to renounce the papacy as unbiblical? Could we be so lucky?
quote:
quote:
I gladly concede that extreme congregationalism is wrong And can you distinguish for us “extreme congregationalism” and not-so-extreme congregationalism? Because this too is very relevant to the need for an earthly leader of the universal church. Is it your assertion that “extreme congregationalism” is unbiblical? (And would you be willing to oppose "extreme congregationalists" with the same fervor you do with the Catholic Church?) What about not-so-extreme congregationalism? Where is the distinction drawn? Who gets to decide? What if the decision makers can’t come to agreement? Looks like your argument is that if a line is hard to draw there is no valid distinction. That's a bit liking saying that because of twilight there is no difference between night and day, or that without someone to tell us the precise moment of sunset we cannot see the difference between noon and midnight. As for the portions of your argument that are about me personally, they go in the rubbish bin with your other personal attacks. Debating the errors of extreme congregationalism or contrasting it with the issues of a less extreme form of congregationalism (like the SBC) are off-topic in this thread, which is about the pope, not about all types of ecclesiastical structures that are out there.
quote:
quote:
These councils? Where is the second one? … If there is any other "council" in Scripture, you haven't brought it to our attention. I’m sure you’re well aware that the Council of Jerusalem is the only council recorded in scripture. It's good to see you acknowledge, even implicitly, that your claim about "these councils" was unwarranted. Let's move on ...
quote:
If you want to take for granted the various ecumenical councils since then (seven of which most Protestants profess to accept) that is your prerogative. Most "Protestants" don't accept those councils in the way that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics profess to ... the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics disagree over what the content of those councils is ... and the Eastern Orthodox follow them more closely than the Roman Catholics do. Most "Protestants" do not follow the Seventh Ecumenical council. In general, the most you see from "most Protestants" is an acknowledgment that Arianism and Nestorianism (as it was understood by those councils) were indeed serious heresies. So "most Protestants profess to accept" is misleading at best. Also, of course, "Protestant" is basically a term for any church that has some sort of tie with Western Christianity, but is not affiliated directly with Rome. Thus, for example, some people include Mormons as Protestants. As such, it's not a useful category. Among Reformed folks, no one (no one, at any rate, who practices Sola Scriptura) accepts the so-called seven ecumenical councils as having the same authority as Scripture - even if they do consider them as having some authority or as being correct on various issues.
quote:
But do you believe the decisions made in Jerusalem were inspired by the Holy Spirit (Ac 11:15f)? Let's be careful here:
a) If you are asking whether there were prophets of God at Jerusalem, Scripture says yes.
b) If you are asking whether Scripture ever refers to them or their decisions as "inspired," the answer is no - Scripture only refers to Scripture as inspired.
c) If you are asking whether decisions made by certain of the apostles were informed by the Holy Spirit giving them special, public revelation, the answer is yes.
d) But even your church recognizes that special public revelation has ceased, so this is again a red herring.
quote:
Do you believe the decision was infallible? I believe the decision was correct. Scripture is infallible, and God is infallible.
quote:
What makes it infallible – because it was based on the witness of Paul? The testimony of Scripture is what assured James that his decision was correct. I too am persuaded by the testimony of Scripture. Do you accept James' sentence for a reason that's different from the reason that James himself concluded what he did? I think, surprisingly, the answer is "yes." If so, even in agreeing with James' decision, you are disagreeing fundamentally with James.
quote:
Well the Church in Antioch didn’t seem to accept what Paul and Barnabas were saying. That's not what Scripture says, which is why you put "seem" there. I wonder whether you think Paul and Barnabas lacked sufficient authority to bind the church at Antioch? If not, what's your point?
quote:
Is it infallible because it is recorded in sacred scripture? Scripture assures us that the event actually took place. Scripture's infallibility does not make the folks recorded in Scripture infallible. Thus, for example, we infallibly know what the serpent said in the Garden of Eden, but the serpent wasn't only fallible, he was a liar.
quote:
The Church in Antioch received an apostolic letter which I’m certain they didn’t believe at the time was sacred scripture. Nobody ever believed that the letter to the church at Antioch was Scripture, although its contents are recorded in Scripture.
quote:
Were the findings of the Council of Jerusalem infallible because they are recorded in scripture or because they came from the Pillar and Foundation of Truth? Again, we must distinguish:
a) The letter wasn't from "the Pillar and Foundation of Truth" but from the church at Jerusalem: the apostles, elders, and brethren there.
b) See above about the difference between correct and infallible.
c) The letter mostly was a denial, disavowing the claims of the Judaizers.
d) The letter had authority because the apostles had authority, and it had authority because it was properly derived from Scripture.
quote:
The Church in Antioch accepted the findings with great joy because it was settled by the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. That's not what Scripture says. The more obvious explanation of their joy is either (a) the fact that the error had been vanquished or (b) "no circumcision necessary." This "joy" would be especially odd if, as you argued above, the Antioch church were actually run by the Judaizers who were hoping that Paul would be convicted of heresy by the Jerusalem council. In such a case, one would expect sorrow and repentance by the church at Antioch, not joy. The joy actually helps to prove my point.
quote:
You may believe the Pillar and Foundation of Truth died off with the last apostle, but I believe the gates of hell will never prevail against it. Wow! A straw man and two misinterpretations of Scripture in one sentence! Impressive! Churches are supposed to function as a pillar and support of truth, and churches continue to exist today - not always functioning perfectly, but that's because they are - like the OT church - made up of men. As Chrysostom explained, "For the truth is the pillar and the ground of the Church. " (source) And likewise, Irenaeus writes: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" (1 Timothy 3:15) of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. " (link) Your position that builds the Scriptures on the Church instead of the Church on the Scriptures is a misinterpretation. The gates of death will not prevail against anyone who repents of his sin and trusts in Christ alone for salvation. For more, on the expression "gates of hell" (link).
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/26/2009 3:57:05 PM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
The answer to that question is obviously "no." And those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. There are lots of things where there are more than view within Catholicism. So, unless you are willing to reject Catholicism on the basis of multiple views about things, you cannot legitimately reject Sola Scriptura on that basis.
But why is the answer "no"?
Are you saying you can be a pre tribber and I can be a post tribber, and we can both be correct?
Did God intend to give us a book, with no authority to interpret it?
You can't just say yea it's a problem but then try to say, well, you guy's have the same problem.
Why is the answer "no"?
Peace
_____________________________
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 2:19:47 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 341
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
The rest of your post is going to take a bit of time to respond to, but in the mean time …
quote:
Which of the “Reformed variety” of commentators support your view? I’ll probably take a quick glance at them but I don’t think you will be able to find anything supporting your view. quote:
If you don't accept Scripture or pre-Luther tradition, you're certainly not going to accept something because a Reformed author said it.
Can you please stop playing your professional apologist games here and provide the evidence? We’re looking for commentary of the “Reformed variety” that supports your conclusion that Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to “track down the source of the error”.
quote:
I'm 9.9999% sure you haven't read Arator. My reason for not quoting him is not that he doesn't support my position, but that he doesn't engage in anything like proper exegesis of the text. If you think he somehow supports your position, please feel free to quote from him, if you've actually read him. Have you actually read him, or were you just blustering?
I’m 100% sure I’ve never read Arator or Bede. In fact, I’ve never heard of them before. Scripture quite clearly tells us why Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem.
Acts 15:2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
Your claims that Peter and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to “track down the source of the error”, rather than to settle a doctrinal dispute are so ridiculous and contrary to what is clear from the text, that I can say with near certainty that you will never find someone who agrees with you. Not Chrysostom, not Arator, not Bede, or even any of your favorite “Reformed variety” commentators. So don’t pretend like you’re not providing evidence because Arator doesn’t “engage in anything like proper exegesis”, or that you’re not providing Reformed variety evidence because you don’t think I’ll ever read it. And don’t expect me to use Arator or Bede to support my view – I’ve never heard of the guys before and there really isn’t any confusion (for most of us at least) as to why Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 2:45:00 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 341
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Looks like your argument is that if a line is hard to draw there is no valid distinction. That's a bit liking saying that because of twilight there is no difference between night and day, or that without someone to tell us the precise moment of sunset we cannot see the difference between noon and midnight. As for the portions of your argument that are about me personally, they go in the rubbish bin with your other personal attacks. Debating the errors of extreme congregationalism or contrasting it with the issues of a less extreme form of congregationalism (like the SBC) are off-topic in this thread, which is about the pope, not about all types of ecclesiastical structures that are out there.
You spend more time dodging questions than it would take to answer them! You keep making the claim that alternatives to the universal church having an earthly leader are off-topic. Since you first made this claim, the moderators have interrupted posting at least three different times to specifically call an end to posts they considered off-topic. And yet questions about ecclesiastical structures are still allowed. You seem to be the only one who considers this off-topic and here is the reason why:
You will not specifically address the difference between congregationalism and “extreme congregationalism” or between other forms of ecclesial government because of what it will lead to. You’ve already conceded “that extreme congregationalism is wrong” (I assume you base this on scripture). Well then, what about not-so-extreme congregationalism? What about normal congregationalism? Any ideas where this will lead? I think you do and this is the reason why you won’t discuss them. This is also the reason why no one in this forum has been willing to put their form of church government under the same scrutiny that this thread has applied to the Catholic Church.
If there is no need for an earthly leader of the universal church, and the ecclesial model of the Catholic Church is an unbiblical failure, ( a failure that has survived 2000 years (or 1700 if you prefer)) then for the sake of the unity of the church that Jesus suffered and died for, please offer us the model you are using that has been so successful for 2000 years at keeping the church unified!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 3:27:33 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5082
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
quote:
There isn't a singular Christian "take on it"....there are a number of varying views concerning eschatology.
If the Bible was meant to be a Christian's sole authority, shouldn't there be only one? Why would you think that? Scripture is infallible people are not. Besides, you have examples of this right within your own church, one papal “utterance” disavowed by another papal “utterance”.
quote:
quote:
LOL...your final authority doesn't offer much of anything very "official" on the matter....doesn't make him much of an authority, now does it? Actually, RC has commented "officially" on very little within the Bible.
And yet the majority of posts opposing the idea of a papacy seem to all imply the Pope being some sort of tyrant, "lording" over his flock, keeping Catholics away from the "truth" of scripture, assuring Catholics can't think for themselves. Very ironic. Well, historically some popes did actually "lord" it over their flock and the rest of Christiandom. And yes they did, in fact, keep truth(the Bible) from their people at least for as long as they were able to.
quote:
So, what is it really about the papacy that causes you so much trouble? (other than the funny hat and all)
Truth be told, I actually like his "funny hat"....his gospel?...not so much.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 3:39:40 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5082
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
LOL...your final authority doesn't offer much of anything very "official" on the matter....doesn't make him much of an authority, now does it? Actually, RC has commented "officially" on very little within the Bible.
So, where's that leave you?...one whole book of the Bible and parts of many other biblical books...what?....up for grabs?....or just ignored?
The teachings of the Catholic Church are not based on any one person. They are based on scripture and the collective teachings of the 2000 year existence of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Nope, your assertion perhaps but not proved by either Scripture or history. There is neither a scriptural or historical basis for many of RCs teachings. Your denomination hasn’t been around for "2000" years. Your own literature proves that the pope is the final authority as you see him as some kind of "vicar of Christ" which, of course, is a totally foreign concept in Scripture.
quote:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (an "official" document) contains scriptural citations directly, as footnotes, and in an index in the back of the book. There are citations from nearly every book totalling well over 2,000. And yes, there are sections on eschatology. Since there are over 31,000 verses in the Bible, that’s not a very impressive statistic for your church.
There are few passages “officially” interpreted. And in those that are, in the words of Brendan Byrne, SJ, a scholar who worked on the Pontifical Biblical Commission, in his book entitled "SCRIPTURE AND VATICAN II: A VERY INCOMPLETE JOURNEY":
"The handling of scripture in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) is simply disgraceful and in many respects regresses not merely behind Vatican II but Divino Affante Spiritu itself (11)."
11. While the Catechism’s express treatment of the place of Scripture in the deposit of faith (§§101-33) largely derives from Vatican II, Dei Verbum, the actual citation of texts throughout the document reverts to the old ‘proof-texting’ approach, neglectful of context, variety of literary form and genre (esp. apocalyptic in regard to eschatological statements); see esp. the teaching on Hell (§§ 1033-35). Most notorious perhaps is the section on Original Sin (§390, where the Tridentine expression of the doctrine is reiterated with scant regard to exegesis of Genesis 1-3 and Rom 5:12-21 that has been mainstream for generations. The sustained presentation of the life of Christ (§§1351-1411) reflects a similar exegetical naivety in regard to the Gospels.
There is as much confusion on biblical interpretation as there is in deciphering the conclusions made by your councils.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 10:51:02 AM
|
|
|
ushalk
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/15/2009
Status: offline
|
is the church of jesus christ going to fall without the pope? does the pope truly have the power to send people to hell as he claims? do we really need to be under his authority to be kept safe? these are claims of the rcc and the pope himself. they may not be boldly stated but they are definatle suggested. please show me biblical proof of all these things.
_____________________________
if we hide the truth we kill a soul.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 12:03:53 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2 quote:
The answer to that question is obviously "no." And those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. There are lots of things where there are more than view within Catholicism. So, unless you are willing to reject Catholicism on the basis of multiple views about things, you cannot legitimately reject Sola Scriptura on that basis. But why is the answer "no"? Why do people disagree about things? Because now we know in part - because the Christian life on earth is one of warfare not yet triumph - because we are humans.
quote:
Are you saying you can be a pre tribber and I can be a post tribber, and we can both be correct? No. Truth is absolute. But not all truth has been given with the same level of clarity. Scripture is perfectly clear on some issues and less clear on other issues. Scripture is even silent about some truths. Both positions cannot be right (that would be absurd), but people who hold to both positions can be saved despite their error on this relatively insignificant issue.
quote:
Did God intend to give us a book, with no authority to interpret it? Well - if we are supposed to read and believe the Scripture, that implies that we have at least the ability to interpret it. Does that mean that everyone's interpretation of everything is right? No, of course not.
quote:
You can't just say yea it's a problem but then try to say, well, you guy's have the same problem. Sure I can.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 12:33:14 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
The rest of your post is going to take a bit of time to respond to, but in the mean time …quote:
Which of the “Reformed variety” of commentators support your view? I’ll probably take a quick glance at them but I don’t think you will be able to find anything supporting your view. quote:
If you don't accept Scripture or pre-Luther tradition, you're certainly not going to accept something because a Reformed author said it. Can you please stop playing your professional apologist games here and provide the evidence? We’re looking for commentary of the “Reformed variety” that supports your conclusion that Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to “track down the source of the error”. I see no point in providing you with commentaries you won't accept. And goading me with insults doesn't give me further haste to do you any favors.
quote:
quote:
I'm 9.9999% sure you haven't read Arator. My reason for not quoting him is not that he doesn't support my position, but that he doesn't engage in anything like proper exegesis of the text. If you think he somehow supports your position, please feel free to quote from him, if you've actually read him. Have you actually read him, or were you just blustering? I’m 100% sure I’ve never read Arator or Bede. In fact, I’ve never heard of them before. Scripture quite clearly tells us why Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem. Well, kudos to you for admitting that you made up your claims about Arator and Bede. Your honesty in that regard is refreshing.
quote:
Acts 15:2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. Seen and addressed above. No doubt it was about this particular question and not something unrelated.
quote:
Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. Seen and addressed above. "This matter" refers actually to those of the Pharisee sect in Jerusalem who objected there to what Paul was saying. Although it is still the same general issue of the Judaizers, it's not referring to "Case #123 on Appeal from the Church at Antioch" or anything like that.
quote:
Your claims that Peter and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to “track down the source of the error”, rather than to settle a doctrinal dispute are so ridiculous and contrary to what is clear from the text, that I can say with near certainty that you will never find someone who agrees with you. I trust your switching in of Peter for Paul is just a typo. As for your judgment, we've demonstrated that it is wrong. In fact, we've adequately demonstrated from the text that they went to Jerusalem because that is where the Judaizers came from.
quote:
Not Chrysostom, not Arator, not Bede, or even any of your favorite “Reformed variety” commentators. We've already seen Chrysostom's agreement, and you've already acknowledged that your claims regarding Arator and the Bede are just bluster, since you haven't read what they wrote. Suffice that you probably give less respect to the Reformed theologians than to Arator and the Bede.
quote:
So don’t pretend like you’re not providing evidence because Arator doesn’t “engage in anything like proper exegesis”, or that you’re not providing Reformed variety evidence because you don’t think I’ll ever read it. At some point, you might want to consider toning back the personal attacks. I am very open about my motives, and there is no need for you to question them.
quote:
And don’t expect me to use Arator or Bede to support my view – I’ve never heard of the guys before and there really isn’t any confusion (for most of us at least) as to why Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem. I consider the fact that you've been unable to respond to the arguments presented a sufficient basis on which to conclude that you cannot show your position from Scripture, just as you cannot show it from the tradition with which you are so openly unfamiliar.
My arguments await any refutation you may see fit to present.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 12:54:08 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 341
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
Kelman,
quote:
Nope, your assertion perhaps but not proved by either Scripture or history. There is neither a scriptural or historical basis for many of RCs teachings. Your denomination hasn’t been around for "2000" years. Your own literature proves that the pope is the final authority as you see him as some kind of "vicar of Christ" which, of course, is a totally foreign concept in Scripture.
Do you have any facts to provide or are you just posting opinions? Yes we believe in an earthly leader of the universal church, a master of the palace (a.k.a. “al-bayit”) of the restored Kingdom of David, entrusted to feed his sheep, not self-imposed but elected by representatives of the universal church. But final authority doesn’t mean sole source of teaching.
quote:
Since there are over 31,000 verses in the Bible, that’s not a very impressive statistic for your church.
I said well over 2000 citations, each of which references multiple verses, putting the scriptural coverage in the tens of thousands of verses. Pick one up and check it out or continue to spew forth lies – your choice. Here are some links:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/
And what about your church? Could you please direct all of us to the “official” commentary of your church? No you can’t because you don’t have one. In fact, your denomination probably formed over disagreement at trying to form something “official”.
And where did you dig up this stuff about Fr. Brendan Byrne? I doubt you’ve read his works directly so I’m assuming from some anti-catholic web site. Do you agree with his conclusions about the Cathechism? Or have you never read either? Do you think he will leave the CC and form a new denomination or maybe stick around and see that the next version of the CC addresses his concerns?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 1:03:21 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher quote:
Looks like your argument is that if a line is hard to draw there is no valid distinction. That's a bit liking saying that because of twilight there is no difference between night and day, or that without someone to tell us the precise moment of sunset we cannot see the difference between noon and midnight. As for the portions of your argument that are about me personally, they go in the rubbish bin with your other personal attacks. Debating the errors of extreme congregationalism or contrasting it with the issues of a less extreme form of congregationalism (like the SBC) are off-topic in this thread, which is about the pope, not about all types of ecclesiastical structures that are out there. You spend more time dodging questions than it would take to answer them!
quote:
You keep making the claim that alternatives to the universal church having an earthly leader are off-topic. Unless you are claiming there is no other alternative, yes.
quote:
Since you first made this claim, the moderators have interrupted posting at least three different times to specifically call an end to posts they considered off-topic. ok
quote:
And yet questions about ecclesiastical structures are still allowed. Don't assume that silence from the moderators means anything particular. My refusal to go down your tangents is one reason they don't need to point out to you that this is not a thread for debating the merits of Presbyterianism vis-a-vis Congregationalism. This is not the thread for that.
quote:
You seem to be the only one who considers this off-topic and here is the reason why: You will not specifically address the difference between congregationalism and “extreme congregationalism” or between other forms of ecclesial government because of what it will lead to. Again, I've been open about my motives, and there is no need for you to question them. The more time you spend attacking me, the more time you are wasting.
quote:
You’ve already conceded “that extreme congregationalism is wrong” (I assume you base this on scripture). Yeo.
quote:
Well then, what about not-so-extreme congregationalism? What about normal congregationalism? Any ideas where this will lead? I think you do and this is the reason why you won’t discuss them. Yes, it will lead to an off-topic debate between Presbyterianism and normal Congregationalism. So, you're partly right - but (of course) whether Presbyterianism is better than Congregationalism is really irrelevant to the issue of the papacy. There are separate threads for that topic, and if you are sincerely interested in seeing the debate between Congregationalism and Presbyterianism, I encourage you to go elsewhere and look for those discussion.
quote:
This is also the reason why no one in this forum has been willing to put their form of church government under the same scrutiny that this thread has applied to the Catholic Church. Most folks seem to have a pretty good ability to see that this is one of the "Catholic" threads for discussing "Catholic" issues, not the relatively smaller issues that non-'Catholics' disagree about. It's about the papacy, not about the relative worth of Congregationalism vs. Presbyterianism.
quote:
If there is no need for an earthly leader of the universal church, and the ecclesial model of the Catholic Church is an unbiblical failure, ( a failure that has survived 2000 years (or 1700 if you prefer)) then for the sake of the unity of the church that Jesus suffered and died for, please offer us the model you are using that has been so successful for 2000 years at keeping the church unified! It seems like your argument for ecclesiastical structure here is pragmatic, based on what works best at preserving institutional unity. There are two problems with this argument: (1) there's a good historical case to be made that having a "pope" hasn't worked that well for that purpose for Western Europe, and (2) there's no particularly good reason to choose institutional unity as the way by which we judge what model is best.
I'd love to hear you expand (without all the personal stuff) on your reasons for picking that standard and for coming to the conclusion that Rome's model has done a good job.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 1:18:08 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 341
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
I see no point in providing you with commentaries you won't accept. And goading me with insults doesn't give me further haste to do you any favors. Okay then provide them for the edification of others. There were a couple posters (kelman and KJB I believe) who seemed to take great interest in your new interpretation they hadn’t recognized before. I’m sure they’d love to see references to other scholars who share this same view.
quote:
Well, kudos to you for admitting that you made up your claims about Arator and Bede. Your honesty in that regard is refreshing.
More games …. I never claimed I read Arator or Bede. I simply drew the logical conclusion that since you didn’t provide quotations from them, that they have absolutely nothing to say that supports your view. Turns out I was right. I’ve never read any of the “Reformed variety” in regards to this topic but I can apply the same logic.
quote:
As for your judgment, we've demonstrated that it is wrong. In fact, we've adequately demonstrated from the text that they went to Jerusalem because that is where the Judaizers came from.
Acts 15:2 …. “And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
Okay Tfan – so your “exegesis” of this verse is not that they went to Jerusalem because the Apostles were there but because the Judaizers came from Jerusalem. When an interpretation of a particular verse is so blatantly wrong, and is supported by no one else, the need for some level of authority starts to become a bit more clear.
quote:
I consider the fact that you've been unable to respond to the arguments presented a sufficient basis on which to conclude that you cannot show your position from Scripture, just as you cannot show it from the tradition with which you are so openly unfamiliar.
My position is very clearly presented in Acts 15:2. Your’s is clearly refuted by the very same verse. Your inabliblity to come up with anyone in the 2000 year history of the church to support your view, even from the “Reformed variety”, should be a clear wake up call. But I guess that’s the beauty of Sola-Scriptura – you can come up with this all on your own and still be “right”, even though no one agrees with you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 1:56:31 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher quote:
I see no point in providing you with commentaries you won't accept. And goading me with insults doesn't give me further haste to do you any favors. Okay then provide them for the edification of others. There were a couple posters (kelman and KJB I believe) who seemed to take great interest in your new interpretation they hadn’t recognized before. I’m sure they’d love to see references to other scholars who share this same view.
quote:
quote:
Well, kudos to you for admitting that you made up your claims about Arator and Bede. Your honesty in that regard is refreshing. More games …. I never claimed I read Arator or Bede. I simply drew the logical conclusion that since you didn’t provide quotations from them, that they have absolutely nothing to say that supports your view. Turns out I was right. I’ve never read any of the “Reformed variety” in regards to this topic but I can apply the same logic. Ah - you assumed based on me not quoting them that they don't agree with me? LOL!
quote:
quote:
As for your judgment, we've demonstrated that it is wrong. In fact, we've adequately demonstrated from the text that they went to Jerusalem because that is where the Judaizers came from. Acts 15:2 …. “And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
Okay Tfan – so your “exegesis” of this verse is not that they went to Jerusalem because the Apostles were there but because the Judaizers came from Jerusalem. You're drawing a false dichotomy and misrepresenting what I said. The Judaizers claimed to come from Jerusalem (where the apostles were), and specifically from James, as we've already shown.
quote:
When an interpretation of a particular verse is so blatantly wrong, and is supported by no one else, the need for some level of authority starts to become a bit more clear. Well ... surprisingly perhaps ... your calling it "wrong" without ever providing a rebuttal to it doesn't particularly impress me. Perhaps it will give some warm fuzzies to folks who don't have time to read the discussion but would like to think that you had provided some sort of rebuttal.
quote:
quote:
I consider the fact that you've been unable to respond to the arguments presented a sufficient basis on which to conclude that you cannot show your position from Scripture, just as you cannot show it from the tradition with which you are so openly unfamiliar. My position is very clearly presented in Acts 15:2. Your’s is clearly refuted by the very same verse. Your inabliblity to come up with anyone in the 2000 year history of the church to support your view, even from the “Reformed variety”, should be a clear wake up call. But I guess that’s the beauty of Sola-Scriptura – you can come up with this all on your own and still be “right”, even though no one agrees with you. There's nothing about any appeal in Acts 15:2, pal. So, you know - nice try, but those who bother to follow the discussion will see through it. They'll also see how I supported my position not only from Scripture but from Chrysostom and the Bede.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 7:39:53 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Terretinfan,
Are you the same dude who tried to debate Dave Armstrong and then gave up? If so, I think you were pretty much trumped on most of your interpretations. So did you come back here to the rookie level to sooth your wounds? Still isn't helping is it?
Otis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 7:51:05 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2719
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
Terretinfan,
Are you the same dude who tried to debate Dave Armstrong and then gave up? If so, I think you were pretty much trumped on most of your interpretations. So did you come back here to the rookie level to sooth your wounds? Still isn't helping is it?
Otis.
Is there a purpose for trash talking? Is there a prize for winning the debate that I missed?
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/27/2009 8:52:21 PM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
quote:
There isn't a singular Christian "take on it"....there are a number of varying views concerning eschatology.
If the Bible was meant to be a Christian's sole authority, shouldn't there be only one? Why would you think that? Scripture is infallible people are not. Besides, you have examples of this right within your own church, one papal “utterance” disavowed by another papal “utterance”.
quote:
quote:
LOL...your final authority doesn't offer much of anything very "official" on the matter....doesn't make him much of an authority, now does it? Actually, RC has commented "officially" on very little within the Bible.
And yet the majority of posts opposing the idea of a papacy seem to all imply the Pope being some sort of tyrant, "lording" over his flock, keeping Catholics away from the "truth" of scripture, assuring Catholics can't think for themselves. Very ironic. Well, historically some popes did actually "lord" it over their flock and the rest of Christiandom. And yes they did, in fact, keep truth(the Bible) from their people at least for as long as they were able to.
quote:
So, what is it really about the papacy that causes you so much trouble? (other than the funny hat and all)
Truth be told, I actually like his "funny hat"....his gospel?...not so much.
quote:
Scripture is infallible people are not.
But your still missing something. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide his apostles to the truth. So according to Christ there shouldn't be disagreements.
quote:
Well, historically some popes did actually "lord" it over their flock and the rest of Christiandom. And yes they did, in fact, keep truth(the Bible) from their people at least for as long as they were able to
See, Catholics get this bit alot. This statement is made from the lens of protestant tradition. If this is true, show us some specific examples of a Pope keeping scripture from people. (True versions of scripture, not Bibles full of errors that were ordered burned)
quote:
Truth be told, I actually like his "funny hat"....his gospel?...not so much
I like the hat too...  There is only one Gospel.
Peace
_____________________________
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/28/2009 5:30:16 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5082
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Kelman,
quote:
Nope, your assertion perhaps but not proved by either Scripture or history. There is neither a scriptural or historical basis for many of RCs teachings. Your denomination hasn’t been around for "2000" years. Your own literature proves that the pope is the final authority as you see him as some kind of "vicar of Christ" which, of course, is a totally foreign concept in Scripture.
Do you have any facts to provide or are you just posting opinions? Yes we believe in an earthly leader of the universal church, a master of the palace (a.k.a. “al-bayit”) of the restored Kingdom of David, entrusted to feed his sheep, not self-imposed but elected by representatives of the universal church. But final authority doesn’t mean sole source of teaching. Are you saying the pope is not considered by your church to be the "vicar of Christ"? If so, I suggest you search your own literature. And most assuredly your pope is not "elected by representatives of the universal church". He's simply elected by your denomination.
quote:
quote:
Since there are over 31,000 verses in the Bible, that’s not a very impressive statistic for your church.
I said well over 2000 citations, each of which references multiple verses, putting the scriptural coverage in the tens of thousands of verses. Pick one up and check it out or continue to spew forth lies – your choice. Here are some links:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/ Why does the truth make you so hostile? I haven't lied. Your church has "officially" interpreted few verses. Have I missed its "official" Bible commentary or "official" magisterial commentary? I don't think so; but perhaps you can direct me to them.
quote:
And what about your church? Could you please direct all of us to the “official” commentary of your church? No you can’t because you don’t have one. In fact, your denomination probably formed over disagreement at trying to form something “official”. Since we don't make the claim of infallibility we wouldn't need one; but you, otoh, are infallible so where is your infallible Bible commentary?
quote:
And where did you dig up this stuff about Fr. Brendan Byrne? I doubt you’ve read his works directly so I’m assuming from some anti-catholic web site. Do you agree with his conclusions about the Cathechism? Or have you never read either? Do you think he will leave the CC and form a new denomination or maybe stick around and see that the next version of the CC addresses his concerns?
Try sticking to the point which is the assessment of a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission that your church's treatment of biblical interpretation was...shoddy.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
