|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/8/2009 4:09:19 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5082
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
Well, RC hasn't exactly kept it together now have they?...not through lack of trying, though....murders, tortures, imprisonments....
Kelman – we’ve already established that there are sinners in the Catholic Church. Did you want me to provide evidence that shows this is a problem in Protestant churches as well? Who’s talking about sinners in your church? I was responding to your claim that: "Man could not keep an institution or organization together for 2,000 years.." You didn’t keep it together, people had to flee because of RC’s departure from scriptural principles.
quote:
quote:
Nope, Christ passed His teaching to the Apostles who trained other men BUT, more importantly, at least according to Peter, they wrote it down so that we might always have the truth instead of just claims of truth.
Right and the Apostles in turn passed these teachings and authority through apostolic succession. We see it in the bible and in the writings of the early church. This practice started with Moses and Joshua and is known to the Jewish people as “semicha”. You guys are always forgetting something....Christ fulfilled the Levitical priesthood. The "priesthood" no longer exists, it is no longer "passed on". According to the Bible, Christ was the last priest and He remains as such forever making intercession on behalf of His children. There is no scripture to support successsion of Apostles and certainly nothing to support the handing down of the Apostles' authority.
Christ said of the Holy Spirit: “he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.: This, along with John 16:13 "...and he will shew you things to come." was said to the Twelve – no one else. You don’t get to trump the declarations of the Lord Jesus Christ.
You rummage through the Bible looking for something anything to support your doctrines. You want to continue the OT priesthood?...then keep all the levitical laws. Keep the seventh day Sabbbath, that’s what the OT priest observed.
quote:
“Bible only” Christians like to think that all we have left after the apostles died off is scripture. The only inspired thing we have left from the Apostles is the Bible. To appeal to a tradition for authority when Holy God did not give it is futile.
Anticipating his death, Peter didn’t “appoint” someone to take his place. Nope, so that we would always have the truth, Peter said he would "write it down". And of course, he never mentioned a successor since this was not something given by God.
quote:
But not even scripture makes this claim. It is a man-made Protestant tradition. The Pillar and Foundation of Truth is led by those God has entrusted to ensure his people are not “sheep which have no shepherd”. Well, God says only of Scripture that it is inspired. The faithful preaching of the truths of Scripture is what makes a church the pillar and ground of truth. When churches teach untruths they are leading “the sheep to the slaughter”. Better to be led by that good, chief, great Shepherd than by the hireling.
quote:
Jesus “semicha’d” his Apostles, and they continued the practice. Christ choosing the Twelve doesn't give you authority for a papacy, succession or any of the rest of it. Besides, Christ's priesthood was non-transferable so it's all just a bunch of silliness to mine the OT searching for something anything to support centurys later doctrinal developments.
quote:
This is apostolic succession and was praciticed... You keep making things up as you go along. No matter how you cut it, Christ choosing the Twelve doesn’t translate into apostolic succession and it's just plain silly to say that it does.
quote:
in the early church and continued until the Protestant revolt. Even many Protestants claim to have apostolic succession and some still practice ordination. Whenever your doctrine began we know for a certainty it has nothing to do with Scripture. God describes the ministers of His church as: presbuteros (presbyters, elders); episkopos (bishops, overseers) and poimen (pastors, shepherds). God pointedly never gave the NT church popes or priests.
quote:
quote:
Now claiming to be so scripturally literate as to state that the pastor "twisted" Scripture? Perhaps if you applied some of that alleged "literacy" and "private interpretation" to the teaching of popes, you might be surprised.
What I found was that he would have to spend a great deal of time telling us what scripture “really meant”. Every word that proceeds from the mouth of God is important. So even if the pastor spent a “great deal of time” on just one word of God it would be God glorifying.
Besides, you’ve got a case of the pot/kettle on your hands. Fifty years and gazillions of words later you guys are still trying to interpret Vatican II. Not to mention you continue to reinterpret encyclicals written hundreds of years ago.
quote:
I remember reading in scripture about baptism cleansing from original sin and about receiving the grace of the Holy Spirit. Well, there you go, maybe you should have listened to your pastor instead of grousing about him since we know that Scripture does not say that water baptism cleanses original sin.
quote:
The pastor had to spend a great deal of time preaching around verses such as Acts 2:37f and Acts 22:16 and 1 Pet 3:21 to make sure we properly understood that baptism was not regenerative but was only a symbolic public expression. Again, you should have listened a little closer. The only thing water can do is take away some dirt on your skin - not the sin in your soul. Acts 10:44-47 puts the lie to that little erroneous “water baptism” doctrine.
quote:
Similar situation with talking around verses that clearly refute OSAS. Of course, there's no security in your water baptism or method of salvation; but, in God's method?....yes, there we find ultimate security in Him and the written Word.
quote:
quote:
See....you're doing it again. If you've yet to see an answer, no doubt you haven't looked sufficiently.
Riiiiiight. And is this where you are going to claim again that you actually did post a quote from Augustine where he states that the ECFs who believed in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist were wrong? And that if I search for it hard enough I will find it? Nope, but it is the part where I tell you’ve shown yourself to be one who sees only what he wants to see.
quote:
quote:
Of course, Scripture is not speaking of the Roman church since it didn't exist. Besides, that simply means the church is the caretaker of the written Word of God, the source of all truth because God says only of written Scripture that it is inspired. What the church does with Holy Scripture is really the issue.
Okay but whatever church it speaks of, we know from historical evidence that:
- they believed in the real physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist LOL...there you go again, that is simply not true and has been proven to be not true. This is your MO, making declarative statements as if there’s actually evidence for them… "unanimous consent.…from the beginning" and none of it true. I guess you guys hope no one is paying attention…but we are.
quote:
- they believed in regenerative baptism Not sure when this wrong doctrine began but, again, Acts 10:44-47 proves it to be wrong,
quote:
- they didn’t reject infants from being baptized Nothing wrong with baptizing babies.
quote:
- they held liturgical services which they called a sacrifice and this liturgy always included the celebration of the Eucharist But never the RC idea of propitiation, though. It was a sacrifice of thanksgiving not one of propitiation at least not until somone changed the teaching of Jesus Christ. Essentially, you’ve reverted to the pagan theology of ritual sacrifice whereby they negotiated with their god for the desired result.
quote:
- they read from and treated the deuterocanonical books as scripture This is really very sad, continuing to hold a view which is historically proven to be unture. The early church did not treat the Apocrypha as if it was Scripture – they new better than that. Just read Jerome to get a truthful perspective on the issue instead of the trumped-up one.
quote:
- they practiced apostolic succession Nope, blanket and untrue statements won't work here. It's one thing to say that the Apostles made provision for the continued teaching of the Gospel. But, it's quite a HUGE and untrue leap to say they believed that the “provision” would possess the same infallible doctrinal authority as did the Apostles themselves.
quote:
- they gathered together with leaders from other churches (several days travel away) to resolve doctrinal disputes
- (I got more but this pretty much narrows it down) If the "more" is of the same sad caliber, there's little reason to post them.
quote:
So is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church? Neither, since both do not teach from the truth of Scripture which is the purpose of the church and the only reason it can be considered the pillar and foundation of truth. Once that truth is no longer taught - it lost its candlestick.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/9/2009 3:55:37 PM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
quote:
Yes, those are Dave's personal attacks directed at me. That does not correspond with your original description, however.
Oh please. You got caught trying to deny any involvement with Dave.
quote:
That's not close to what I said. And no - I don't make this topic personally about me.
This is a normal tactic. You talk about our pastor until your face is blue, but as soon as we try to see where your coming from that's off topic. That is because in most cases people are their own mini-popes, ready to judge and reject any "pastor". Is that biblical? Was Paul a pastor? Where in the bible is it shown one can reject and or correct his teaching!?
quote:
What do you mean by "upholding church teachings"?
Isn't it obvious? How can you judge personal interpretations or opinion? Unless everyone agrees to the WCF then you are just spinning in circles...right? Who it the final authority? Oh yes, the bible, or at least my interpretation of what the bible means....
Otis
That's the main problem with some of the protestant responses on this thread. It's easy to be critical of the structure of a major religious organization like the Catholic Church while not seeing the fact that most every Christian has some sort of "pope". For some it's the Pope in Rome, for others their local pastor, for others it can be John Calvin or James White of Alpha and Omega ministries for that matter.
All Christians rely on some sort of authority outside of scripture for the simple fact that scripture needs to be interpreted.
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? - 7/9/2009 4:19:19 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 6339
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
All Christians rely on some sort of authority outside of scripture for the simple fact that scripture needs to be interpreted.
I believe in the priesthood of the believer, which includes both the right and responsibility to interpret scripture though the indwelt Holy Spirit. I've never had a pastor that I completely agreed with on interpretation of all scripture.
_____________________________
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." -John 6:29
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/9/2009 4:52:33 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
That's the main problem with some of the protestant responses on this thread. It's easy to be critical of the structure of a major religious organization like the Catholic Church while not seeing the fact that most every Christian has some sort of "pope". For some it's the Pope in Rome, for others their local pastor, for others it can be John Calvin or James White of Alpha and Omega ministries for that matter. Are you honestly trying to suggest that anyone views John Calvin or James White as the earthly head of the church? anyone thinks either of them is infallible?
I would hope not. If you honestly thought that, you'd be an idiot (and I don't think you're an idiot).
No - this is just a typical ploy from the RCC side: any kind of respected teacher just gets glommed into being a "pope" as a tactic to avoid dealing with the problems of the papacy.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/9/2009 7:18:54 PM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
All Christians rely on some sort of authority outside of scripture for the simple fact that scripture needs to be interpreted.
I believe in the priesthood of the believer, which includes both the right and responsibility to interpret scripture though the indwelt Holy Spirit. I've never had a pastor that I completely agreed with on interpretation of all scripture.
I completely understand your point. The only problem I have is if you are being guided by the Holy Spirit and your pastor is being guided by the Holy Spirit there should be no disputes. How do you reconcile the differences in doctrine when each individual "priest" is being guided by the Holy Spirit. I have yet to hear a good explanation of this.
Maybe someday I will.
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? - 7/9/2009 7:26:21 PM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: turretinfan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
That's the main problem with some of the protestant responses on this thread. It's easy to be critical of the structure of a major religious organization like the Catholic Church while not seeing the fact that most every Christian has some sort of "pope". For some it's the Pope in Rome, for others their local pastor, for others it can be John Calvin or James White of Alpha and Omega ministries for that matter. Are you honestly trying to suggest that anyone views John Calvin or James White as the earthly head of the church? anyone thinks either of them is infallible?
I would hope not. If you honestly thought that, you'd be an idiot (and I don't think you're an idiot).
No - this is just a typical ploy from the RCC side: any kind of respected teacher just gets glommed into being a "pope" as a tactic to avoid dealing with the problems of the papacy.
The old "problems of the Papacy" ploy again. There were some "bad" popes 900 years ago, everyone knows that. You guy's have anything new to complain about? Lets move on from that already. The only problem you really have with the Papacy is with authority. Plain and simple. Just like the reformers. Again with the labeling of "infalibility". You can practice it all you want, just don't claim it? Is that how you justify it?
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? - 7/9/2009 7:46:00 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2 quote:
ORIGINAL: turretinfan quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
That's the main problem with some of the protestant responses on this thread. It's easy to be critical of the structure of a major religious organization like the Catholic Church while not seeing the fact that most every Christian has some sort of "pope". For some it's the Pope in Rome, for others their local pastor, for others it can be John Calvin or James White of Alpha and Omega ministries for that matter. Are you honestly trying to suggest that anyone views John Calvin or James White as the earthly head of the church? anyone thinks either of them is infallible?
I would hope not. If you honestly thought that, you'd be an idiot (and I don't think you're an idiot).
No - this is just a typical ploy from the RCC side: any kind of respected teacher just gets glommed into being a "pope" as a tactic to avoid dealing with the problems of the papacy. The old "problems of the Papacy" ploy again. Please explain how problems of the papacy are a "ploy" in a thread on the papacy?
quote:
There were some "bad" popes 900 years ago, everyone knows that. The fact that there were evil men who were popes is a problem for the papacy, but it is the least of the papacy's problems. After all RC theology has adapted to permit this sort of thing.
quote:
You guy's have anything new to complain about? LOL - We have to come up with new things to complain about? We cannot get compelling answers about the old things. We don't need new reasons to reject the unbiblical doctrine of papal infallibility (to take just one example) - the old ones are just fine.
quote:
Lets move on from that already. That would seem to defeat the point of a thread about the papacy. Unless you're trying to suggest that valid criticism of the papacy should be silenced.
quote:
The only problem you really have with the Papacy is with authority. Plain and simple. Just like the reformers. I guess you can just accuse everyone who disagrees with the papacy of having problems with authority ... but that's not really an argument, just an assertion - an assertion founded on ... authority! Of course, your own papacy doesn't make this accusation - this is your own personal authority on this one.
quote:
Again with the labeling of "infalibility". You can practice it all you want, just don't claim it? Is that how you justify it? Please explain what you think it means to "practice infallibility," because without such an explanation it just sounds like you are speaking nonsense. Infallibility is a claim (or not) or a reality (or not) - it's not really a "practice." No one says, "Wow, he's acting infallible today!" Now maybe you mean that you think that folks act like they think they are infallible, but if they tell you "no, we don't think that" what gives you the ability to second-guess their own claim about their own mind?
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/10/2009 1:51:08 AM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
Please explain how problems of the papacy are a "ploy" in a thread on the papacy?
If a thread about "why do we need a Pope" all boils down to some bad popes of the middle ages that Catholics admit happened, then it's a very weak argument indeed. If your particular congregation or denomination is absolutely perfect and no pastor in it's entire history every sinned in some way, then go ahead and continue to throw the stones.
quote:
The fact that there were evil men who were popes is a problem for the papacy, but it is the least of the papacy's problems. After all RC theology has adapted to permit this sort of thing.
What, and Calvinism hasn't "adapted" over the centuries to fit all sorts of new doctrines and idea's? John Calvin beleived in infant baptism, do you? This is all your own personal conjecture with no basis in reality. No suprise really.
quote:
LOL - We have to come up with new things to complain about? We cannot get compelling answers about the old things. We don't need new reasons to reject the unbiblical doctrine of papal infallibility (to take just one example) - the old ones are just fine.
I forgot, you can determine papal infalibility is unbiblical because you say so.
quote:
That would seem to defeat the point of a thread about the papacy. Unless you're trying to suggest that valid criticism of the papacy should be silenced.
Sounds like the "bad pope" ploy is the only ammo left in the arsenal. I'll accept that.
quote:
I guess you can just accuse everyone who disagrees with the papacy of having problems with authority ... but that's not really an argument, just an assertion - an assertion founded on ... authority! Of course, your own papacy doesn't make this accusation - this is your own personal authority on this one.
Your right, the Pope didn't give himself the authority, Christ did. Thanks for clearing that up.
quote:
Please explain what you think it means to "practice infallibility," because without such an explanation it just sounds like you are speaking nonsense. Infallibility is a claim (or not) or a reality (or not) - it's not really a "practice." No one says, "Wow, he's acting infallible today!" Now maybe you mean that you think that folks act like they think they are infallible, but if they tell you "no, we don't think that" what gives you the ability to second-guess their own claim about their own mind?
Because Christ gave his authority to the apostles and their successors. Was John Calvin ordained by a successor to the apostles?
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? - 7/10/2009 9:39:03 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2 quote:
Please explain how problems of the papacy are a "ploy" in a thread on the papacy? If a thread about "why do we need a Pope" all boils down to some bad popes of the middle ages that Catholics admit happened, then it's a very weak argument indeed. If your particular congregation or denomination is absolutely perfect and no pastor in it's entire history every sinned in some way, then go ahead and continue to throw the stones. a) I see that you meant just "weak argument" and not "ploy."
b) You misunderstood my original comment about "problems with the papacy" because you confused the office and the men. Problems with the popes is not the same thing as problems with the papacy, as such.
c) Although, of course, problems with the popes become a problem for the papacy, as discussed below.
d) As for the comparison, we don't place the same reliance on men as the RCC does. Our pastors are not presented as universal heads of the church, nor as infallible oracles of God. And when we point out problems with particular popes (as opposed to problems with the papacy), we don't focus on just any sin or them just sinning "in some way" but on the very serious sins of Simony, Adultery, Murder, etc..
e) While it would be a weak argument to simply say, "popes are morally imperfect, therefore their theology is fallible," it is a somewhat stronger argument to say, "someone as outright evil as Alexander VI could not possibly by a legitimate successor of the Apostle Peter." A response from "your side" that it doesn't really matter how evil the man is just seems to beg the question - why doesn't it matter aside from your church saying it doesn't matter?
quote:
quote:
The fact that there were evil men who were popes is a problem for the papacy, but it is the least of the papacy's problems. After all RC theology has adapted to permit this sort of thing. What, and Calvinism hasn't "adapted" over the centuries to fit all sorts of new doctrines and idea's? John Calvin beleived in infant baptism, do you? This is all your own personal conjecture with no basis in reality. No suprise really. a) You're missing the point. The point wasn't that adaption itself proves that the papacy is wrong, but that RC theology has come up with a solution to the problem of evil popes (a solution that we see no reason to accept, but that's already discussed above).
b) I'm a Reformed Presbyterian, so naturally I agree with Calvin and Augustine that Scripture teaches that infants of believers are part of the covenant and should be baptized. But, of course, this is not a thread for debating infant baptism as opposed to believers-only baptism.
c) While adaptation is not necessarily bad, adaptation is sign of some kind of problem. Reformed churches accept that adaptation may be necessary, because they humbly admit fallibility. Rome does not admit fallibility, so adaptation is more troubling there, because it is inconsistent.
d) You'd be a lot better off if you didn't assume that my comments are based on personal conjecture - they very rarely use that. Normally, they are based on careful research and study, which is why (as you may have noticed), I am always ready to answer your objections to them.
quote:
quote:
LOL - We have to come up with new things to complain about? We cannot get compelling answers about the old things. We don't need new reasons to reject the unbiblical doctrine of papal infallibility (to take just one example) - the old ones are just fine. I forgot, you can determine papal infalibility is unbiblical because you say so. a) I realize this is just rhetoric from your side, but perhaps it would make you look good if you avoided putting words in my mouth that are so obviously not my words.
b) Obviously, any statement "you can determine" is going to involve at least some amount of private judgment. Any time a person makes a determination, they are using private judgment. There are two options: leave your brain on the shelf, or make determinations.
c) Some determinations are reasoned, proper determinations - others are unfounded opinions. My conclusion that papal infallibility is unbiblical is in the former category, something that I hope you'd see if you took the time to careful consider the arguments rather than simply trying to attack my statements.
d) With all due respect, the fact that your church says something is not in itself a reasonable basis for your accepting it as true, particularly when the issue is the infallibility/authority of your church. That would be circular reasoning. "My church is infallible because it says it is" is essentially a circular argument. Now, you can say you just accept that on faith, but then there are other problems.
e) The doctrine of papal infallibility is not found in Scripture or in the fathers. Most serious scholars from "your side" acknowledge this and try to come up with some alternative. Newman had an acorn/seed analogy, Fortescue tries to use a claim that the doctrine is "implicit." But these are all very weak arguments that require one to assume that Rome's teaching is true and then try to find ways to make the difficult evidence of history "not inconsistent" with that assumption.
quote:
quote:
That would seem to defeat the point of a thread about the papacy. Unless you're trying to suggest that valid criticism of the papacy should be silenced. Sounds like the "bad pope" ploy is the only ammo left in the arsenal. I'll accept that. How you can say that right after you criticize me for pointing out that papal infallibility is unbiblical is baffling. I have trouble believing that you really think that I am saying that the "evil popes" argument is the only one we have. To be clear, though, as I said above, and you quoted: "it is the least of the papacy's problems." That means that there many other more serious problems.
quote:
quote:
I guess you can just accuse everyone who disagrees with the papacy of having problems with authority ... but that's not really an argument, just an assertion - an assertion founded on ... authority! Of course, your own papacy doesn't make this accusation - this is your own personal authority on this one. Your right, the Pope didn't give himself the authority, Christ did. Thanks for clearing that up. a) Again, how you are reaching your conclusions from what I wrote is mystifying. I can only suggest that you read more carefully.
b) Christ did not give your pope authority. If you wish to claim that he did, the burden is on you to prove that. Others have tried and failed, but perhaps you will succeed?
c) You failed to address the actual point I made, which was that your accusation extended beyond any higher authority that you could appeal to.
quote:
quote:
Please explain what you think it means to "practice infallibility," because without such an explanation it just sounds like you are speaking nonsense. Infallibility is a claim (or not) or a reality (or not) - it's not really a "practice." No one says, "Wow, he's acting infallible today!" Now maybe you mean that you think that folks act like they think they are infallible, but if they tell you "no, we don't think that" what gives you the ability to second-guess their own claim about their own mind? Because Christ gave his authority to the apostles and their successors. Was John Calvin ordained by a successor to the apostles? a) This really doesn't look like an explanation of what you think it means to practice infallibility.
b) You seem a bit Calvin-crazy in this discussion. I'll give you a pass today, though, since it happens to be his 500th birthday today. I would presume that Calvin was ordained by Farel and other reformed elders in Switzerland. Farel himself was apparently ordained by who was ordained by Christoph von Utenheim, the bishop of Basel. Von Utenheim became bishop of Basel in 1502 which was during the reign of that most memorable of popes, Alexander VI. Alexander VI is typically as the 215th pope. So, to the extent that you accept that Alexander VI was a successor of Peter ...
- TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/10/2009 10:07:53 AM
|
|
|
ushalk
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/15/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
quote:
Yes, those are Dave's personal attacks directed at me. That does not correspond with your original description, however.
Oh please. You got caught trying to deny any involvement with Dave.
quote:
That's not close to what I said. And no - I don't make this topic personally about me.
This is a normal tactic. You talk about our pastor until your face is blue, but as soon as we try to see where your coming from that's off topic. That is because in most cases people are their own mini-popes, ready to judge and reject any "pastor". Is that biblical? Was Paul a pastor? Where in the bible is it shown one can reject and or correct his teaching!?
quote:
What do you mean by "upholding church teachings"?
Isn't it obvious? How can you judge personal interpretations or opinion? Unless everyone agrees to the WCF then you are just spinning in circles...right? Who it the final authority? Oh yes, the bible, or at least my interpretation of what the bible means....
Otis
That's the main problem with some of the protestant responses on this thread. It's easy to be critical of the structure of a major religious organization like the Catholic Church while not seeing the fact that most every Christian has some sort of "pope". For some it's the Pope in Rome, for others their local pastor, for others it can be John Calvin or James White of Alpha and Omega ministries for that matter.
All Christians rely on some sort of authority outside of scripture for the simple fact that scripture needs to be interpreted.
Peace
you are right the real problem is all the rcc is, is just as you say a religous organization. nothing more. i do not think that the pope is all that he is made out to be by this organization. but then again the word of god states that you will know them by their fruits.
let us take a look at the fruits of the pope. what godly fruits has he produced that he needs to be there? most catholics believe that they are saved by how they follow him rathger than christ. they also believe that they are saved by their own works. they also believe that mans commandments are more than gods.
with all this stated where has the pope shown people that christ is the way the truth and the life and not himself or the catholic church. i guess he did it by telling the jesuits that they were going to hell and will no longer be under gods umbrella if they leave the rcc.
it seems you all try to ignore these facts when they are brought about. mainly because they are false teaching and statements of the catholic pope. but he has stated this. no matter how you want to look at it that statement claims that he is as god or is god and that the rcc is the only true way to worship. where do we need the pope or the rcc?
< Message edited by ushalk -- 7/10/2009 12:27:52 PM >
_____________________________
if we hide the truth we kill a soul.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/10/2009 2:59:42 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
most catholics believe that they are saved by how they follow him rathger than christ. they also believe that they are saved by their own works. they also believe that mans commandments are more than gods. ...it should be pretty clear to one and all who are reading this thread that you have no idea what even a few Catholics believe, let alone "most", as you claim in your post.
Apparently, your faith allows you to spread falsehoods about faiths you know nothing about as a tool of evangelizing your own version of faith. "Most" here would recognize that as simply perpetuating falsehood, and they may render a decision about your version of faith based on this practice, speaking of knowing one by their fruits....
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/10/2009 3:54:28 PM
|
|
|
JKaplan
Posts: 79
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
) This really doesn't look like an explanation of what you think it means to practice infallibility.
b) You seem a bit Calvin-crazy in this discussion. I'll give you a pass today, though, since it happens to be his 500th birthday today. I would presume that Calvin was ordained by Farel and other reformed elders in Switzerland. Farel himself was apparently ordained by who was ordained by Christoph von Utenheim, the bishop of Basel. Von Utenheim became bishop of Basel in 1502 which was during the reign of that most memorable of popes, Alexander VI. Alexander VI is typically as the 215th pope. So, to the extent that you accept that Alexander VI was a successor of Peter ...
Happy birthday to John Calvin.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/10/2009 4:50:19 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
most catholics believe that they are saved by how they follow him rathger than christ. they also believe that they are saved by their own works. they also believe that mans commandments are more than gods. ...it should be pretty clear to one and all who are reading this thread that you have no idea what even a few Catholics believe, let alone "most", as you claim in your post.
Apparently, your faith allows you to spread falsehoods about faiths you know nothing about as a tool of evangelizing your own version of faith. "Most" here would recognize that as simply perpetuating falsehood, and they may render a decision about your version of faith based on this practice, speaking of knowing one by their fruits....
Doghouse,
I hope you see the difference between his and my posts.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/10/2009 7:10:53 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Doghouse,
I hope you see the difference between his and my posts. I do, and so does everyone else here. I respect your positions because of your diligence, even if I cannot bring myself to agree with them. Hopefully, some of us are getting the same love from your side.
And if all the cards were cast on to the table, it might be surprising to find how much area there is in which we do agree, namely that the source of our Salvation is the grace of God received in a relationship with Him through Christ Jesus. What I feel is being discussed here is our response to, accountability for, and participation in that relationship.
I see that in your posts. I don't see it in posts like the one I responded to above.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/10/2009 7:14:39 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Irish2,
Here is the only explanation: Any time man adds to or takes away from exactly what the bible states, there will be discrepancies. God's words are perfect; ours are not. Yes, God's words - written in Koine Greek to a first century audience and culture - are perfect. What do those words mean when applied to time travel, gene splicing and internet data?
That is what all the hub-bub is about here - discernment of the application of those perfect words to our 21st century lives.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/10/2009 7:53:34 PM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: turretinfan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
most catholics believe that they are saved by how they follow him rathger than christ. they also believe that they are saved by their own works. they also believe that mans commandments are more than gods. ...it should be pretty clear to one and all who are reading this thread that you have no idea what even a few Catholics believe, let alone "most", as you claim in your post.
Apparently, your faith allows you to spread falsehoods about faiths you know nothing about as a tool of evangelizing your own version of faith. "Most" here would recognize that as simply perpetuating falsehood, and they may render a decision about your version of faith based on this practice, speaking of knowing one by their fruits....
Doghouse,
I hope you see the difference between his and my posts.
-TurretinFan
I think all Catholics on this thread see the difference.
quote:
a) This really doesn't look like an explanation of what you think it means to practice infallibility.
b) You seem a bit Calvin-crazy in this discussion. I'll give you a pass today, though, since it happens to be his 500th birthday today. I would presume that Calvin was ordained by Farel and other reformed elders in Switzerland. Farel himself was apparently ordained by who was ordained by Christoph von Utenheim, the bishop of Basel. Von Utenheim became bishop of Basel in 1502 which was during the reign of that most memorable of popes, Alexander VI. Alexander VI is typically as the 215th pope. So, to the extent that you accept that Alexander VI was a successor of Peter ...
Sorry to make you go through all the history but I was refering to the unbroken line of apostolic succession. Sorry for the confusion.
Maybe I am a bit Calvin crazy this week, maybe next week I'll switch back to Luther. (sorry all you Lutherans) 
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? - 7/11/2009 12:11:24 AM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
The only problem I have is if you are being guided by the Holy Spirit and your pastor is being guided by the Holy Spirit there should be no disputes. How do you reconcile the differences in doctrine when each individual "priest" is being guided by the Holy Spirit. I have yet to hear a good explanation of this.
Maybe someday I will.
Irish2,
Here is the only explanation: Any time man adds to or takes away from exactly what the bible states, there will be discrepancies. God's words are perfect; ours are not. 
I like your explanation, thanks for sharing how you view this issue.
I guess I still have a problem because Christ was so clear in the Gospels that when he was gone he would send a helper, the Holy Spirit.
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (John 14:26)
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." (John 16:13)
I can't believe this somehow ended with the apostles as some believe because one of the first things the apostles did in Acts was to replace the "office" of Judas. I think even the King James version uses the term "bishoprick"
1611, w:King James Bible, King James Bible, Acts 1:20: ''For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
When it comes to issues of faith and morals, the "guiding you into all truth" in John's Gospel is what Papal infallibility is all about.
When you begin to see apostolic succession in the New Testament beginning in Acts 1 with the replacement of Judas, and how it played out in the early church and connect that with the promise of the guiding of the Holy Spirit, you start to understand where Catholics are coming from with the idea of the Papacy.
When the pastor of a Baptist church rejects baptismal regeneration and the pastor of a Lutheran church accepts the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the Holy Spirit cannot be guiding them both.
Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide his apostles. Since Christ hasn't returned yet, that must imply their successors as well. If not the church would have died with the apostles.
Although I love and respect protestant Christians, I just can't buy into the concept protestantism is based on.
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? - 7/11/2009 1:21:09 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 341
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
I can't believe this somehow ended with the apostles as some believe because one of the first things the apostles did in Acts was to replace the "office" of Judas. I think even the King James version uses the term "bishoprick"
It didn't end with the apostles as we well know. Neither Matthias nor Paul were of the original twelve (in fact Paul doesn't even meet the criteria of Acts 1:21f) and no one denies the authority of either of these leaders. Rejection of apostolic succession is contrary to scripture.
quote:
When you begin to see apostolic succession in the New Testament beginning in Acts 1 with the replacement of Judas, and how it played out in the early church and connect that with the promise of the guiding of the Holy Spirit, you start to understand where Catholics are coming from with the idea of the Papacy.
Exactly right. And replacement of the office/bishoprick is the very first recorded act of the apostles after Jesus' ascension. There are several examples in scripture of leaders being appointed via laying on of hands. Even some Protestants believe in apostolic succession as did the entire church prior to some time after the Protestant revolt. And even more Protestants practice the biblical concept of "ordination" of their pastors/ministers (which begs the question - who has the authority to ordain and from where did it originate?). As I stated in a previous post, the practice is founded in the Jewish roots of our faith ("semicha" in Hebrew) beginning when God commanded Moses to "transfer some of his authority" to Joshua so that God's people would not be "like sheep with no shepherd".
How some "bible believing" Christians can't discern from scripture what even their Protestant brethren also believe and what has been practiced in the Church since Jesus' glorious ascension, is difficult to understand. Maybe some pastors/ministers are blinded to what they don't want to see.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 8:23:36 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2 quote:
a) This really doesn't look like an explanation of what you think it means to practice infallibility.
b) You seem a bit Calvin-crazy in this discussion. I'll give you a pass today, though, since it happens to be his 500th birthday today. I would presume that Calvin was ordained by Farel and other reformed elders in Switzerland. Farel himself was apparently ordained by who was ordained by Christoph von Utenheim, the bishop of Basel. Von Utenheim became bishop of Basel in 1502 which was during the reign of that most memorable of popes, Alexander VI. Alexander VI is typically as the 215th pope. So, to the extent that you accept that Alexander VI was a successor of Peter ... Sorry to make you go through all the history but I was refering to the unbroken line of apostolic succession. Sorry for the confusion. I assumed that you consider the 215th pope and his bishops to be part of that unbroken line. Then, I simply traced from that to Calvin. Perhaps there is some nuance to your question that I have still missed, because I'm not seeing how I didn't meet your request.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 11:05:44 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 341
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: turretinfan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2 quote:
a) This really doesn't look like an explanation of what you think it means to practice infallibility.
b) You seem a bit Calvin-crazy in this discussion. I'll give you a pass today, though, since it happens to be his 500th birthday today. I would presume that Calvin was ordained by Farel and other reformed elders in Switzerland. Farel himself was apparently ordained by who was ordained by Christoph von Utenheim, the bishop of Basel. Von Utenheim became bishop of Basel in 1502 which was during the reign of that most memorable of popes, Alexander VI. Alexander VI is typically as the 215th pope. So, to the extent that you accept that Alexander VI was a successor of Peter ... Sorry to make you go through all the history but I was refering to the unbroken line of apostolic succession. Sorry for the confusion. I assumed that you consider the 215th pope and his bishops to be part of that unbroken line. Then, I simply traced from that to Calvin. Perhaps there is some nuance to your question that I have still missed, because I'm not seeing how I didn't meet your request.
-TurretinFan
Sorry if I'm a bit slow to follow this. So does the Reformed Presbyterian church believe in apostolic succession? What about ordination? What constitutes a validly ordained pastor/elder?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 11:39:23 AM
|
|
|
ushalk
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/15/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
most catholics believe that they are saved by how they follow him rathger than christ. they also believe that they are saved by their own works. they also believe that mans commandments are more than gods. ...it should be pretty clear to one and all who are reading this thread that you have no idea what even a few Catholics believe, let alone "most", as you claim in your post.
Apparently, your faith allows you to spread falsehoods about faiths you know nothing about as a tool of evangelizing your own version of faith. "Most" here would recognize that as simply perpetuating falsehood, and they may render a decision about your version of faith based on this practice, speaking of knowing one by their fruits....
it is actually a lot of your posts that leads me to see this. it will take awhile but i will put a few of them up and let you see what i mean.
_____________________________
if we hide the truth we kill a soul.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 12:08:40 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 341
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ushalk
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
most catholics believe that they are saved by how they follow him rathger than christ. they also believe that they are saved by their own works. they also believe that mans commandments are more than gods. ...it should be pretty clear to one and all who are reading this thread that you have no idea what even a few Catholics believe, let alone "most", as you claim in your post.
Apparently, your faith allows you to spread falsehoods about faiths you know nothing about as a tool of evangelizing your own version of faith. "Most" here would recognize that as simply perpetuating falsehood, and they may render a decision about your version of faith based on this practice, speaking of knowing one by their fruits....
it is actually a lot of your posts that leads me to see this. it will take awhile but i will put a few of them up and let you see what i mean.
"most catholics"???? I know of no practicing Catholic who believes these things but I've read from a lot of anti-Catholics who like to perpetuate these lies. Instead of investing effort in harrassing Doghouse, why don't you spend some time sharing with the brethren how your fellowship follows the church model established by Jesus and his Apostles as shown in Acts 15?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 12:30:08 PM
|
|
|
ushalk
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/15/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
ORIGINAL: ushalk
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
most catholics believe that they are saved by how they follow him rathger than christ. they also believe that they are saved by their own works. they also believe that mans commandments are more than gods. ...it should be pretty clear to one and all who are reading this thread that you have no idea what even a few Catholics believe, let alone "most", as you claim in your post.
Apparently, your faith allows you to spread falsehoods about faiths you know nothing about as a tool of evangelizing your own version of faith. "Most" here would recognize that as simply perpetuating falsehood, and they may render a decision about your version of faith based on this practice, speaking of knowing one by their fruits....
it is actually a lot of your posts that leads me to see this. it will take awhile but i will put a few of them up and let you see what i mean.
"most catholics"???? I know of no practicing Catholic who believes these things but I've read from a lot of anti-Catholics who like to perpetuate these lies. Instead of investing effort in harrassing Doghouse, why don't you spend some time sharing with the brethren how your fellowship follows the church model established by Jesus and his Apostles as shown in Acts 15?
what is a practicing catholic, one that is practicing everything that the pope and preachers claim to the people. going before a preist is not going to forgive your sins. now is the pope. just because you go to mass and claim catholic over christ does not make you saved. buying your own baptism certificate and your own indulgences from the church does not save you. you can drink all the wine you want to and claim the pope all you want to. but if it is not christ then you are not saved and will not be until you do period.
_____________________________
if we hide the truth we kill a soul.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/11/2009 3:08:06 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 341
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
what is a practicing catholic, one that is practicing everything that the pope and preachers claim to the people. going before a preist is not going to forgive your sins. now is the pope. just because you go to mass and claim catholic over christ does not make you saved. buying your own baptism certificate and your own indulgences from the church does not save you. you can drink all the wine you want to and claim the pope all you want to. but if it is not christ then you are not saved and will not be until you do period.
Does this mean you are not going to share with us how your fellowhip follows the biblical church model established by Jesus and the Apostles?
|
|
|
|
 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
