RE: Why do we need a Pope? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine



Message

WildByNature -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/7/2009 3:55:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: patricius79
As WILDBYNATURE recently observed, the Bible is not actually God. So do Christians idolatrize the Bible, since they call this Book by the name of God?

As I said, non-RCs do NOT call the Bible "Jesus", or believe the Bible is literally the resurrected Jesus -- that is just your erroneous belief, so ... No, non-RCs do not idolatrize the Bible.

The response patricius79 is referring to can be found here:
http://forums.crossdaily.com/m_1632/mpage_213/key_/tm.htm#4610926

quote:

I think the veneration that Catholics and protestants give the Bible is very similar to that which Catholics give to the authority of the Papacy and to the Saints.

Except that protestants and other non-RCs do not "venerate" the Bible. However, if you admit RCs worship the Bible because they believe it is literally the resurrected Jesus, and call it "Jesus", then you are admitting that they do the same with regard to the pope and saints. Thanks for the admission, pat.



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/7/2009 4:22:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qtman

Oh! and I need to add every one that taught the Gospel in those days . would have been influenced by either Jesus Himself or one of the apostles. So I will agree that regardless of which Phillip was speaking to the Enuch they would have been influenced by the apostles. But the Apostles not Rome. Because as I mentioned in an earlier post at the time Rome was not the center of the Church. The Church was spread out and the various Churches operated independently of each other. The main common thread was the Apostles.

The churches did not operate independently of each other. Paul and Peter and the other Apostles wrote letters, traveled extensively, and commissioned many other leaders. The gathering of the leaders in Jerusalem to resolve a doctrinal dispute between the allegedly “independent church” of Antioch and the rest of the universal church, as recorded in Acts 15, is biblical proof against this Protestant man-made tradition of congregationalism.

The Philip who brought the Good News to the Eunuch was the deacon, not the apostle. We can read earlier in Acts that this Philip was ordained by the laying on of hands. This is a biblical practice that comes from our Jewish Roots. I wrote extensively earlier on this practice known as "semicha". You can do a search in this thread if you are interested. "Systematic Theology" courses in most Protestant seminaries or colleges probably aren't going to touch on this because it goes against their traditions, so those taking such classes will call the biblical practice of ordination by imposition of hands something like "stupid magical powers” or “laughable magic rituals”. You can read about these “powers” and “rituals” just about everywhere someone is commissioned to a position of leadership. In the case of Philip, it is in Acts 6:6.

According to Ethiopian Christian tradition, not scripture, the Ethiopian Eunuch (EE) did bring the Good News of Jesus Christ to Ethiopia. However, according to the same tradition, the Apostle Mathew visited the Church in Ethiopia and is considered the Apostolic origins of the Church in Ethiopia.



WildByNature -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/7/2009 4:31:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wkirscher
We’ve had a lot worse thrown at us than this from your opening post ….

You take offense to a statement of fact? And I was not "throwing" anything at YOU -- this was directed to another non-RC poster and meant to be informative. Do you deny that RC defines the "Word of God" differently than other Christians? Because you as much as said so in your last post to me. Therefore, there is absolutely NO reason why YOU should consider this to be a derogatory remark directed at RCs. Besides, if I wanted to, I could do much better than that. [;)]

quote:

But that’s okay, you’re still welcome in this thread.

Gee thanks, I didn't realize this thread was invitation only. [8|]

quote:

I’m sorry that you were offended by my personal story about my personal conversion to the Catholic Church.

I was offended by your condescending words -- not your story.

quote:

quote:

So, you believe you had a pastor who wasn't called by God?

No, I never said that. In fact, I see how God placed him in my life for a very distinct purpose.

That doesn't mean you believe he was called by God to be a pastor. If you did believe this, then you wouldn't have depicted him as you did and rejected his teachings.

quote:

quote:

if you have finished it you must have read that there has been disunity in teachings, strife, and division in the Body of Christ since the time of the Apostles which is recorded in the Scriptures

Yep.

Then why do you criticize protestants for doing something that has been happening since before the CC or protestants even existed? And, if your going to claim the CC has always been around, then why would you criticize protestants for something your current church would then also be guilty of?

If Paul told us that now we "know in part" (1Cor 13:9-13), wouldn't you EXPECT to find "disunity in teachings"? Even in the CC, have the popes always been in unity regarding doctrine? Why then do they have councils to determine what to teach? There must be some disagreement to be settled. Why was it once taught that you can't eat meat on Friday but now you can? Why was it once taught that laymen were not allowed to read the Scriptures but now they can? Why did pope Benny16 change the 1500 year old doctrine of "limbo" -- first it existed, now it doesn't? Is this how you define "unity in teachings" -- agreement with whomever is currently pope no matter what popes have declared to be truth in the past? Don't ever try to convince me that the CC is the ONE true faith because, as their history shows, they can't seem to get it right either.

quote:

And I noticed that the authoritative leaders of the church wrote epistles and visited the churches for this very reason.

Yup. As you point out, there were “authoritative leaders” (Apostles) given the authority by Christ – not ONE (pope) – to settle doctrinal disputes in the Body of Christ. And these epistles and visits were recorded in the Scriptures so that we may settle doctrinal disputes through the Scriptures – not through the pope.

quote:

In fact, the bible even shows me how the Church in Antioch remained united with the Church in Jerusalem by calling the leaders together to hold a council to resolve a doctrinal dispute. I never saw any of that in the “bible only” churches I went to.

That's a shame. But just because you didn't "see" any council meetings taking place, doesn't mean they didn't. Councils still meet to discuss the different interpretations of the doctrine set forth in the Scriptures. And if you want to boast that the CC has more council meetings, then boast away -- the more meetings there are, the more proof there is that there are disputes to be settled in the CC.

quote:

Maybe you can answer what no one else has been able to do in this thread …. When was the last time a “bible only” church called a council meeting like the one in Acts 15 to resolve doctrinal disputes and remain united?

And by "bible only" church you mean a non-CC? I don't believe the topic of this thread is "Why do we need bible only churches". However, maybe you haven't gotten an answer because it is ludicrous to believe that the CC is the only denomination who holds council meetings. Councils are conviened all the time, i.e., the UMC Council meets regularly, twice a year -- not just when there is a dispute to be settled. And apparently you have never heard of the National Council of Churches or the World Council of Churches, etc. The fact is non-RC Church Councils have always been held to celebrate their similar beliefs and to rejoice in their differences. If you converted to RC simply because you believed your previous denomination never held a council, you can come out of her now.



ManimalX -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/7/2009 5:10:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qtman


I would be gald to. First you have Phillip the Apostle. This Phillip was one of the original twelve. Most of what we know about him comes from the Book of John.

The second was Phillip the Evangelist. This phillip was one of the original seven men chosen to handle the temporal duties involved in the church. I guess what we would today call a Deacon. This Phillip is mentioned often on the Book of Acts. It is this Phillip that went to the Ethiopian and explained the Gospel. Or at least this is what is indicated.


Sam is exactly right, of course. I don't know why I called Philip an Apostle in my last post post, when it is widely accepted to be Philip the Evangelist, which I knew. I was too focused on Apostles, I guess [;)] Thanks for the correction, Sam.

The Philip from Acts 8:4-8 is the Philip chosen by the full number of Disciples at the request of the Apostles in Acts 6:5.



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/7/2009 5:16:47 PM)

quote:

That doesn't mean you believe he was called by God to be a pastor. If you did believe this, then you wouldn't have depicted him as you did and rejected his teachings.

His calling is for him to decide, not me. In retrospect, I’d have to say he wasn’t because he ended up quitting his ministry. At the time, I considered him my pastor and I accepted his teachings. But there’s only so many times you can read scripture, think one thing, and then have someone tell you what it “really means”. I started questioning some of his teachings. Baptism was the big one. I found scripture that refutes the “symbolic only” “believers only baptism”. I started reading ancient writings to see how our ancestors in faith interpreted the scriptures. I found there was absolutely no pre-reformation evidence of this belief about baptism and found countless writings supporting regenerative baptism. Same thing with “The Rapture” – but you only have to go back about 200 years to see where this was invented. Same thing with “symbolic only” Lord’s Supper. Same thing with Congregationalism. Same thing with the Canon of Scripture. Same thing with church authority. The list goes on and on. I don’t mean to be condescending, just presenting facts.

quote:

Then why do you criticize protestants for doing something that has been happening since before the CC or protestants even existed?

I don’t criticize Protestants for having differences in beliefs. I object to the unbiblical way they “solve” these differences: by either dividing or claiming “it’s not important to my salvation”. What a selfish statement! We should be concerned about everyone’s salvation, not just our own. Jesus prayed for unity so the world would know God the Father sent him.

Yes the CC, just like the bible and the early church, holds council meetings. They gather together, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they resolve doctrinal disputes and remain in remarkable, though not perfect, unity. This is the biblical way and was the exact same way the universal church settled disputes from the Church in Antioch.

quote:

As you point out, there were “authoritative leaders” (Apostles) given the authority by Christ – not ONE (pope) – to settle doctrinal disputes in the Body of Christ. And these epistles and visits were recorded in the Scriptures so that we may settle doctrinal disputes through the Scriptures – not through the pope.

And according to many Protestants, this authority died out with the death of St. John, and all we are left with now is the scriptures. This is unbiblical Protestant tradition. It doesn’t fit with the Jewish roots of our faith. It doesn’t fit with Christian history. And I’m not talking post Constantine. The very earliest of Christian writings, some from disciples of the Apostles themselves, refute this Protestant invention. Again, I’m not trying to be condescending, just stating facts.

quote:

That's a shame. But just because you didn't "see" any council meetings taking place, doesn't mean they didn't. Councils still meet to discuss the different interpretations of the doctrine set forth in the Scriptures.

Please give me one example of a Protestant Council meeting in which the Protestant canon of scripture is proclaimed. Please give me an example of a Protestant Council where they resolved the doctrinal dispute between “symbolic only” and regenerative baptism. Please give me an example of a Protestant Council where they resolved the differences between a Presbyterial form of government and a Congregational form. The councils don’t take place. Only division while at the same time crying out “sola-scriptura”.
quote:

And if you want to boast that the CC has more council meetings, then boast away -- the more meetings there are, the more proof there is that there are disputes to be settled in the CC.
Again, it’s not that there are disputes. It’s how they are settled. Universal Council meetings or division? One is biblical, the other is not. One seeks to better understand our faith, the other seeks to label everything “unimportant for my personal salvation”.

quote:

Councils are conviened all the time, i.e., the UMC Council meets regularly, twice a year -- not just when there is a dispute to be settled. And apparently you have never heard of the National Council of Churches or the World Council of Churches, etc.
Fantastic! Can you give an example of where they addressed differences in a fundamental doctrine like baptism or perhaps in important social issues like abortion?



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/7/2009 6:11:44 PM)

quote:

Fantastic! Can you give an example of where they addressed differences in a fundamental doctrine like baptism or perhaps in important social issues like abortion?


When Peter (the RCC pope) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Oh, let the infallibility rhetoric roar!

Popes are never wrong......they are infallible!

Maybe Peter was not sitting on the magical chair of Peter?

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew.

How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Peter was sent to the Jews!

Peter was wrong, was opposed for being wrong, and was corrected for being wrong.

Too bad Roman Catholics cannot figure out that Peter and his oral and traditional actions were wrong like many of their other popes.

Go with the papal floooooooow.

KJB



ManimalX -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/7/2009 8:46:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Same thing with “The Rapture” – but you only have to go back about 200 years to see where this was invented.



OMW to the folks' house for dinner, but just wanted clarification on this point: You mean the "pre-trib rapture", not just "the rapture", right?

The "rapture" (the "catching up") is in 1 Thess 4:16-17, which is obviously older than 200 years [:D]

You do know that the pre-trib rapture is not the universal position of non-Romans, right? And that eschatology isn't an issue to divide over, as one's eschatological views don't effect one's salvation?



patricius79 -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/7/2009 10:02:00 PM)

BEN WROTE:

quote:

Are you trying to say that Constantine's impact on the church was positive?



I don’t know. Certainly it was positive in some ways. I did imply that it was positive in regard to the Church’s doctrinal development.

My main point was that the Roman Empire did not cause the Church to add or subtract beliefs, which is impossible.

WILDBYNATURE WROTE:

quote:

As I said, non-RCs do NOT call the Bible "Jesus", or believe the Bible is literally the resurrected Jesus -- that is just your erroneous belief, so ... No, non-RCs do not idolatrize the Bible.

Right. And neither do Catholics idolatrize the Papacy. But we do call the Bible “the Word of God”, the name of the Second Person of the Trinity.

Likewise, Catholics give venerable titles to the Papacy, because of the One who has anointed the Popes with all authority in the Church.


quote:

[patricius said]”I think the veneration that Catholics and protestants give the Bible is very similar to that which Catholics give to the authority of the Papacy and to the Saints.”

Except that protestants and other non-RCs do not "venerate" the Bible.


Really? I would think that calling the Bible “the Word of God” is veneration, which means “honor” as I understand it.

quote:

Thanks for the admission, pat.


There seems to be some miscommunication. Catholics don’t worship the Bible, or the Papacy, or the Saints, but I think we do venerate all three, because we see them as gracious signs of our God, whom alone Catholics have always worshipped.
http://www.catholic.com/library/One_True_God.asp



patricius79 -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/7/2009 10:32:24 PM)

WILDBYNATURE WROTE
quote:

Why was it once taught that you can't eat meat on Friday but now you can?


Thanks for bringing this up, as there is an important distinction here. This was (and is) a family discipline to help us remember the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ; it was not a doctrine of the faith. In other words, the Papacy never taught that there was something intrinsically wrong with eating meat on Friday, which is why exceptions were always made for the ill, and so on. The Pope has disciplinary and doctrinal authority, just like a parent has the authority to teach absolute truth, AND make prudential judgments to help the children get their priorities right. Example: don't watch T.V. more than 1 hour per day, even though this rule might be modified later, while the basic doctrine: "the T.V. isn't our God"--or "worship God alone"--will never change.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0807btb.asp



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/7/2009 10:55:18 PM)

KJB –

Paul confronted Peter for his actions, not his teachings. This is very clear from the context of the passage. And I’m not sure what translation you are using that says Peter “forced” the Gentiles to follow Jewish customs. The translation I use, as well as the King James Bible, use “compel”. In other words, Peter was setting a bad example by his actions.

And are you sure you want to argue that Peter, or any of the Apostles for that matter, were fallible in their teachings? Maybe you believe the Apostles taught fallibly and the Holy Spirit only guaranteed that what they wrote would be infallible? So the first century church couldn’t trust anything until things were written down decades later. Sola-scriptura gone awry!



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/7/2009 11:28:38 PM)

quote:

quote:

Except that protestants and other non-RCs do not "venerate" the Bible.

Really? I would think that calling the Bible “the Word of God” is veneration, which means “honor” as I understand it.

There seems to be some miscommunication. Catholics don’t worship the Bible, or the Papacy, or the Saints, but I think we do venerate all three, because we see them as gracious signs of our God, whom alone Catholics have always worshipped.


Yes, Catholics definitely venerate the scriptures. When God’s word is proclaimed, it is done with great reverence and it stands on it’s own. You will never hear a priest or deacon interrupt a reading by pausing every verse or two to tell us what scripture “really means”.

In all the mainstream Protestant churches, and especially in the “bible only” churches, I never heard God’s Word proclaimed as much as I do in the Catholic Church. In three years, the liturgical readings of the CC cover nearly the entire bible, not just a pastors favorite passages from Paul’s letters.

Speaking of veneration of God’s Word – did you know that in Jewish synagogues, before God’s Word is read, the scriptures are marched through the congregation and people will actually bow down before them and touch their prayer shawls against it? And that Jewish synagogues throughout the world all read the same portions of scripture in their liturgy? They universally follow a prescribed set of readings just like the CC does. This ensures coverage of ALL of God’s Word and not just favorite sections.



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 12:41:20 AM)

quote:

You mean the "pre-trib rapture", not just "the rapture", right?


By “rapture”, I mean any dispensationalist teachings whether they be a pre, mid, or post, tribulation “rapture”. But most people associate the “rapture” with the “Left Behind” movie and books. Dispensationalism is a new teaching recorded nowhere prior to the 18th century. And Americans soak it in like it’s some biblical truth the church has always believed. Most who believe in it have no idea that it is a teaching less than 300 years old and that it’s pretty much something isolated to American Evangelicals.

quote:

The "rapture" (the "catching up") is in 1 Thess 4:16-17, which is obviously older than 200 years

The phrase comes from scripture. The common (at least in the US) understanding comes from 18th century man-made tradition.

quote:

And that eschatology isn't an issue to divide over, as one's eschatological views don't effect one's salvation?
Again, one’s personal salvation is not the only thing a Christian should be concerned with. There are, in my opinion, some adverse effects of dispensationalist teachings, especially as it pertains to peace in the Middle East. Hank Hanagraff (a.k.a. “The Bible Answer Man”) wrote a good book on all of this called “The Apocalypse Code”.



ManimalX -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 1:53:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wkirscher

quote:

You mean the "pre-trib rapture", not just "the rapture", right?


By “rapture”, I mean any dispensationalist teachings whether they be a pre, mid, or post, tribulation “rapture”. But most people associate the “rapture” with the “Left Behind” movie and books. Dispensationalism is a new teaching recorded nowhere prior to the 18th century. And Americans soak it in like it’s some biblical truth the church has always believed. Most who believe in it have no idea that it is a teaching less than 300 years old and that it’s pretty much something isolated to American Evangelicals.

quote:

The "rapture" (the "catching up") is in 1 Thess 4:16-17, which is obviously older than 200 years

The phrase comes from scripture. The common (at least in the US) understanding comes from 18th century man-made tradition.

quote:

And that eschatology isn't an issue to divide over, as one's eschatological views don't effect one's salvation?
Again, one’s personal salvation is not the only thing a Christian should be concerned with. There are, in my opinion, some adverse effects of dispensationalist teachings, especially as it pertains to peace in the Middle East. Hank Hanagraff (a.k.a. “The Bible Answer Man”) wrote a good book on all of this called “The Apocalypse Code”.


Hmm... I would borrow this definition from http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html

"To summarize, dispensationalism is a theological system that emphasizes the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, recognizes a clear distinction between Israel and the church, and organizes the Bible into the different dispensations it presents."

Would you be so kind as to provide a succinct summary of the Roman position? Does Rome promote replacement theology?

P.S. Hank Hanegraaff and the Bible Answer Man program have been great aids to me over the years. I respect the man tremendously, but I do have some staunch reservations regarding "The Apocalypse Code", not just because I think the preterist/partial preterist view is probably one of the weakest eschatological views one can hold, but because of the embarrassingly logical and hermenteutical fallacies committed by Hank in The Code. That being said, Hank still does make some good points in the book.

There is an excellent critical review by Norman Geisler of Hank's book here: http://www.normangeisler.net/ReviewApocalypseCode.html

Here is an excerpt regarding points of agreement:
quote:

We began by agreeing with The Code on several important principles:

1. The date of a view has no necessary connection with the truth of the view (57).
2. The part must be interpreted in the light of the whole (228, 230).
3. We should not impose a model on Scripture but should derive it from Scripture (236).
4. The literal method is the correct method of interpreting Scripture (10, 23).
5. The “literal interpretation” is the one that takes the text “in its most obvious and natural sense” (230).
6. The correct meaning is generally what the original audience understand by it (1)
7. Literal is not the same as literalistic. The Bible uses symbols and figures of speech (10).
8. Typology is an important part of biblical interpretation (161).
9. The Old Testament is often the key to understanding the New Testament (161, 230).
10. “Ideas have consequences” (47).


Geisler then demonstrates how Hank basically goes against the very principles he espouses. it is interesting if you care to look at it.



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 2:19:59 AM)

wkirscher,

quote:

Paul confronted Peter for his actions, not his teachings. This is very clear from the context of the passage. And I’m not sure what translation you are using that says Peter “forced” the Gentiles to follow Jewish customs. The translation I use, as well as the King James Bible, use “compel”. In other words, Peter was setting a bad example by his actions.


Take a look at this translation and let me know what you think of it;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%202&version=AMP

[:)]

KJB



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 2:39:14 AM)

quote:

Thanks for bringing this up, as there is an important distinction here. This was (and is) a family discipline to help us remember the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ; it was not a doctrine of the faith. In other words, the Papacy never taught that there was something intrinsically wrong with eating meat on Friday, which is why exceptions were always made for the ill, and so on. The Pope has disciplinary and doctrinal authority, just like a parent has the authority to teach absolute truth, AND make prudential judgments to help the children get their priorities right. Example: don't watch T.V. more than 1 hour per day, even though this rule might be modified later, while the basic doctrine: "the T.V. isn't our God"--or "worship God alone"--will never change.


Refrain from the eating of meat on a Friday to remember the suffering of Jesus Christ?

Exceptions were always made for the ill?

Oh such discipline. [&:]

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

Popes..............a bunch of control freaks.

[sm=rollingeyes.gif]

KJB



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 3:19:59 AM)

wkirscher,

quote:

Paul confronted Peter for his actions, not his teachings.


quote:

Yes, Catholics definitely venerate the scriptures. When God’s word is proclaimed, it is done with great reverence and it stands on it’s own. You will never hear a priest or deacon interrupt a reading by pausing every verse or two to tell us what scripture “really means”.


Wouldnt veneration be more in the realm of doing or acting instead of only reading and knowing? What good is it for a pope to read that we are to love even our enemies if he sends men out to arrest and persecute Christians?

I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, listens to my words, and acts on them.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke6.htm

quote:

Speaking of veneration of God’s Word – did you know that in Jewish synagogues, before God’s Word is read, the scriptures are marched through the congregation and people will actually bow down before them and touch their prayer shawls against it? And that Jewish synagogues throughout the world all read the same portions of scripture in their liturgy? They universally follow a prescribed set of readings just like the CC does. This ensures coverage of ALL of God’s Word and not just favorite sections.


Touching prayer shawls on Bibles or Scripture is not what God had in mind as some sort of veneration of His Word. A disciple would be one who is disciplined, and to be disciplined would not only be to teach in accord with the Word of God, but to act in accord with the Word of God. Loving others would be a show of discipline and whether a person eats meat on Fridays really has nothing to do with anything important.

Washing hands is a pretty good thing to do........but washing hands before and after voting for pro-abortion legislation is sort of trivial in the grand scheme of things. Of what use is it for a man to touch his clothing or pieces of cloth to a Bible if he does not love even his enemies? Love is shown by actions and you and I both would not consider it a show of love if I sent people over to arrest you because you wrote something about the solar system that I did not agree with. Of what use is it for a man to have fancy clothes and fancy hats as he reads the Bible if he sends out people to track down and persecute people that have faith in Jesus Christ?

For every tree is known by its own fruit. For people do not pick figs from thornbushes, nor do they gather grapes from brambles.

A good person out of the store of goodness in his heart produces good, but an evil person out of a store of evil produces evil; for from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.

"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' but not do what I command?

I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, listens to my words, and acts on them.

That one is like a person building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when the flood came, the river burst against that house but could not shake it because it had been well built.

But the one who listens and does not act is like a person who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against it, it collapsed at once and was completely destroyed."

I don't care how many buses you own
Or the size of your sanctuary
It doesn't matter how steep your steeple is
If it's sittin' on a cemetery
I don't care if you pave your parking lot
Or put pads upon your pews
What good is picture perfect stage
If you're missin' all the cues?

I don't care if your pastor's super-powered
And your program's always new
What you need is love and truth
And men are going to come to you
It doesn't matter that you know the Bible
If it's all just in your head
The thing I need to ask you is
Have you done the things I said?

Do you love your wife?
For her and for your children
Are you layin' down your life?
What about the others?
Are you livin' as a servant to
Your sisters and your brothers?
Do you make the poor man beg you for a bone?
Do the widow and the orphan cry alone?

I don't care if you pray for miracles
I don't care if you speak with tongues
I don't care if you said you love Me
In every song you've sung
It doesn't matter that your sacrifice of praise
Is loud enough to raise the dead
The thing I need to ask you is
Have you done the things I said?

(Steeple Song by Don Francisco)

KJB



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 3:34:49 AM)

patricius79,

quote:

Thanks for bringing this up, as there is an important distinction here. This was (and is) a family discipline to help us remember the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ; it was not a doctrine of the faith.


By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another........

1. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you eat only fish on Fridays.........

2. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you always submit to popes.......

3. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you participate in Roman Catholic rituals.......

4. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.......and love even your enemies........

5. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you seek out those that have faith in Me and declare they are anathema if they do not believe Mary was a perpetual virgin........

6. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you believe that wafers turn into my flesh.......

Which one of those would best describe a real disciple and genuine discipline?

I can see where it would be of good discipline in not being a drunkard, a gossiper, a sexual pervert, a robber, lazy, or a glutton...etc.....but where oh where are we told it is any kind of discipline to refrain from eating meat on Fridays?

I could see giving meat on Fridays to the poor as a good discipline.....

Maybe you are talking about personal fasting?

KJB



kelman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 5:04:31 AM)

quote:

quote:

Isn't it reached [in the R.C.] rather by a sheeplike acquiescence to authority about a thing for which there cannot be authority at all?

There is no doctrinal authority? So we don't know which books are inerrant?
No, there is no doctrinal authority besides what God left us - the Bible. And, of course, we know what books are without error...those God inspired which, of course, does not include the Trent addition of the Apocrypha.

quote:

quote:

… "unity", which is what we already have as the body of Christ: we are unified in our declaration of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and acceptance of the gift He gave us in His shed blood.

I thought you said doctrinal unity is impossible.
Obviously, RC's cardinal thought uniformity of thought was not possible "In fact, when the intellect is cultivated," it is as certain that it will develop into a thousand various shapes as that infinite hues and tints and shades of colour will be reflected from the earth's surface when the sunlight touches it ; and in the matters of religion the more, by reason of the extreme subtlety and abstruseness of the mental action by which they are determined."



kelman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 5:09:08 AM)

quote:

...as measured to what authority, or by what standard? And remember, "Scriptures" is not the answer, because of the snake-handlers in the Appalachians who also claim Scripture as their authority.
We're not being informed of anything these posts haven't already made clear....that according to RC, Scripture is NOT the answer.

Imagine that!....the Word of God spoken from His very mouth is not the answer. Well, if it's not, then we're all in a lot of trouble.

As for "snake handlers", that's simply another RC strawman. Apparently, RC has either never read or just doesn't believe the part about "rightly dividing the Word of God".

quote:

(namely - the personal witness of the Apostles soaking up Jesus's earthly ministry).
There's only one place we can find the personal witness of the Apostles, one place in which they left the inspired words from God and that one place is the Bible.

Present us with even one authoritative word from either the Lord Jesus Christ or the Apostles....then RC might have a leg to stand on.

However, we all know RC will never can never comply, so, there remains no reason to believe its doctrines are anything but bluster combined with arrogance and a perceived self-superiority.



kelman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 5:26:44 AM)

quote:

all we are left with now is the scriptures.
Yep, and God makes the declaration that the Bible is all that is necessary for salvation - to make the man of God perfect. Since it adds to Scripture, apparently, RC thinks it can do better than perfect....better than God.

quote:

Paul confronted Peter for his actions, not his teachings.
Roman obfuscation - Peter was teaching by his actions.

quote:

And are you sure you want to argue that Peter, or any of the Apostles for that matter, were fallible in their teachings?
Actually, there is no problem "going there". There's no reason to believe that their preaching wasn't inspired. However, we can know for an absolute certainty that what they wrote was without error because God says only of Scripture that it is inspired.

quote:

Yes, Catholics definitely venerate the scriptures
Regardless of protestations to the contrary, it's quite obvious that RC as a "Bible-lite" church does not "venerate" Scripture. They've made that clear in many different posts.

quote:

The phrase comes from scripture. The common (at least in the US) understanding comes from 18th century man-made tradition.
Hmm, now we have Paul's inspired words being referred to as "man made"...and they want to say they "venerate" Scripture?

"Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep (die), but we shall all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible (body) must put on incorruption, and this mortal (body) must put on immortality."

The "rapture" is as clearly implied in Scripture as is the doctrine of the Trinity. Many ECFs thought that "the end" was close at hand. Besides, there is significantly more evidence for the rapture than for any of RC's doctrines, i.e., co-redeemers, mediators, sinless ones, etc.

On the Millennium
“But Cerinthus, too, through revelations written, as he would have us believe, by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things, which he pretends were shown him by angels; alleging that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is to be on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem is again to be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the Scriptures of God, wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be a space of a thousand years for marriage festivals.” (Caius Fragment from a Dialogue or Disputation Against Proclus) SOURCE



Qtman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 7:12:50 AM)

quote:

Sam is exactly right, of course.


ManimalX I hope you don't mind but I wanted to preserve this statement. I don't think I have read it on these threads since I have been here.[:D]

wkirscher, when I say the churches were independent it was to say they had not been organized under one church order with one leader. THey each had their own leaders. Either apostles or men appointed by the apostles. And there was problems in each church that had to be corrected. Else why would there be so many letters written to the various churches, by Paul for example, issuing corrective instructions.

Patricius79, Constatine I placed the center (Headquarters) of the church in Rome because that was the seat of the government at the time. Beside that Constatine thought it was his obligation to oversee the church on things other than doctrine. It had nothing to do with the people in Rome being more spiritual. Of course it would be presumed the Apostles were more knowledgeable in the Gospel than the other people because they had been taught by Jesus Himself. But, the Apostles was spread out among the various churches. The church in that day had the tendency to look to the one that established the church for instruction. The converted Jews looked mainly to Peter or one of the other twelve. The Gentile Churches mainly looked to Paul or one that Paul appointed like Timothy.



patricius79 -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 9:21:55 AM)

WILDBYNATURE WROTE:
quote:

Why was it once taught that laymen were not allowed to read the Scriptures but now they can?


What Papal letter are you referring to? The Catholic Church has always believed that everyone has a right to know the Scriptures.

quote:

Why did pope Benny 16 change the 1500 year old doctrine of "limbo" -- first it existed, now it doesn't?


The Papacy has never defined the idea of “limbo”. Catholics have never been obliged to believe it, though they are permitted to believe it.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

quote:

Is this how you define "unity in teachings" -- agreement with whomever is currently pope no matter what popes have declared to be truth in the past?


I don’t know of any example of any ex cathedra statements which have contradicted on another. If such could be shown, this would disprove the Catholic claims.

"Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals."
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp


quote:

Don't ever try to convince me that the CC is the ONE true faith because, as their history shows, they can't seem to get it right either.


I don’t agree the historic Church has ever taught error.



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 9:33:17 AM)

KJB – I checked out the link you provided and it only confirms my position. Or do you believe Peter was one of the “false brethren who had been secretly smuggled in”? Again, do you really want to claim that the Apostles taught fallibly? Could the first century church not trust the Apostle’s teachings? Did they have to wait until the Apostles wrote the N.T. before truth would be revealed to them?

quote:

Wouldnt veneration be more in the realm of doing or acting instead of only reading and knowing?
Sort of. Veneration can be thought of as contemplation. In one of the “bible only” churches I went to, on Good Friday, we had a “veneration of the Cross”. There was a big wooden cross laid out and the pastor asked us to contemplate before this cross the sins in our life and how we are forgiven because of the Cross. Many kissed the cross. Many knelt before it an prayed. Many put their sins on a piece of paper and nailed it to the cross. For me, this act of veneration had real profound effects and I can see how God used it as an instrument of His Grace. One of the ways the Jewish people venerate the Word of God is by touching the Torah as it is passed around. In the O.T., they showed veneration by storing it in the Ark. In the CC, we venerate the scriptures by bowing down before the Gospel is read and mark our foreheads, lips, and heart with a small cross and say “Let me think of you, let me speak of you, let me love of you”.

Otherwise I agree with much of your post. When the pope, or anyone for that matter, sins, they are exercising their free will and are not living out the Word. And you are very right in making a distinction between a “believer” and a “disciple”. My personal opinon is that "believer" is a defficient term. “Believers” have heard the Good News and believe it. Satan has heard the Good News and believes it. Disciples hear the Good News, believe it, and, through their cooperation with God’s Grace, act on it. As I’ve said before, I can agree with the Protestant claim of “Faith Alone” if “Faith” is properly understood. “Believe Alone” I cannot agree with and is refuted hundreds of times in scripture. As James said, “Faith without works is dead”. A dead faith is not a saving faith.



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 10:39:11 AM)

wkirscher,

quote:

KJB – I checked out the link you provided and it only confirms my position.


I was hoping you would read the whole chapter on that link and then I think we would be in unity if you agreed with it.

Here are a few things that was in that link;

God is not impressed with the positions that men hold and He is not partial and recognizes no external distinctions--those [I say] who were of repute imposed no new requirements upon me [had nothing to add to my Gospel, and from them I received no new suggestions].

But on the contrary, when they [really] saw that I had been entrusted [to carry] the Gospel to the uncircumcised [Gentiles, just as definitely] as Peter had been entrusted [to proclaim] the Gospel to the circumcised [Jews, they were agreeable];

For He Who motivated and fitted Peter and worked effectively through him for the mission to the circumcised, motivated and fitted me and worked through me also for [the mission to] the Gentiles.

There are a few things that stand out there for us.

1. Men in fancy positions have nothing to add to the gospel because the gospel is complete.

2. God fitted and motivated Peter for a mission to the Jews and I am not a Jew.

3. Peter was not the sole leader of the church on earth.

But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I protested and opposed him to his face [concerning his conduct there], for he was blameable and stood condemned.

1. When Peter came to Antioch he was not the sole leader of the church on earth and he was opposed by another man.

But as soon as I saw that they were not straightforward and were not living up to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas (Peter) before everybody present, If you, though born a Jew, can live [as you have been living] like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how do you dare now to urge and practically force the Gentiles to [comply with the ritual of Judaism and] live like Jews?

[I went on to say] Although we ourselves (you and I) are Jews by birth and not Gentile (heathen) sinners,

Yet we know that a man is justified or reckoned righteous and in right standing with God not by works of the Law, but [only] through faith and [absolute] reliance on and adherence to and trust in Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One). [Therefore] even we [ourselves] have believed on Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law [for we cannot be justified by any observance of the ritual of the Law given by Moses], because by keeping legal rituals and by works no human being can ever be justified (declared righteous and put in right standing with God).

1. I am not obligated to be under Peter (since I am not a Jew) and it would be more realistic for me to be under the authority of those in the line of Paul (Gentiles).

2. A man is not justified before God by either having faith in Peter or Paul.....but rather faith in the gospel message they proclaim which is just as valid of a gospel if I proclaim it. The gospel is the same truth and is not subject to a man in Rome......."those who were reputed to be something--though what was their individual position and whether they really were of importance or not makes no difference to me."

3. People are justified when they rely on Jesus Christ and not laws, popes, or the practice of rituals.

But if, in our desire and endeavor to be justified in Christ [to be declared righteous and put in right standing with God wholly and solely through Christ], we have shown ourselves sinners also and convicted of sin, does that make Christ a minister (a party and contributor) to our sin? Banish the thought! [Of course not!]

1. Even if a ritual like the Eucharist was an important part of the Christian life and to neglect it was sinful, people that have come to Jesus Christ have already come to Him because they know they are sinful in the first place. People should not be turning to Him to gloat and boast of their efforts, rituals, or selves. They should be turning to Him for pardon and He is exactly where they get it. You may need pardon in one area and I in another.....but if we have broken one law we are just as guilty as breaking them all.

2. My right standing does not come from my own sinless perfection because I am a sinner even though Jesus does not condone sin. Right standing comes from being justified in Christ and through Christ and the Roman Catholic church along with popes have nothing to add to that because being "in Christ" is all that is required.

I have been crucified with Christ [in Him I have shared His crucifixion]; it is no longer I who live, but Christ (the Messiah) lives in me; and the life I now live in the body I live by faith in (by adherence to and reliance on and complete trust in) the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

[Therefore, I do not treat God's gracious gift as something of minor importance and defeat its very purpose]; I do not set aside and invalidate and frustrate and nullify the grace (unmerited favor) of God. For if justification (righteousness, acquittal from guilt) comes through [observing the ritual of] the Law, then Christ (the Messiah) died groundlessly and to no purpose and in vain. [His death was then wholly superfluous.]

1. There is no law or ritual that any pope can add that supercedes and out shines the power and simplicity of the gospel. The gospel is the power of God to salvation and Jesus Christ is my savior. Peter did not take my sins upon himself and nor did Paul. Peter and popes are not saviors. They proclaimed the gospel and in its simplicity it calls me to deny myself and trust in Jesus Christ. I have nothing to add that makes the simplicity of the gospel in its awesome power any more powerful. It is powerful enough and to add anything else to it is foolishness.

For it has been made clear to me, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions and wrangling and factions among you.

What I mean is this, that each one of you [either] says, I belong to Paul, or I belong to Apollos, or I belong to Cephas (Peter), or I belong to Christ.

Is Christ (the Messiah) divided into parts? Was Paul crucified on behalf of you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?

I think you will enjoy this entire link;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%201&version=AMP

KJB



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/8/2009 10:57:29 AM)

quote:

Yep, and God makes the declaration that the Bible is all that is necessary for salvation
Been through this a hundred times. Please provide a scripture reference and we can discuss. Scripture nowhere claims that it is the sole source of infallible revelation of truth. The descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob don’t even believe this. Protestants made this up. Scripture tells us the Church, the rebuilt hut of David, is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. If scripture was the only source of truth, God would not have inspired this to be written.

quote:

Roman obfuscation - Peter was teaching by his actions.
So does that mean every time an Apostle sinned, they were teaching that it was okay to sin? Jesus warned his disciples about those who sit in the Chair of Moses, (that’s lingo for those who God put in authority to teach) “observe what they tell you but do not be guided by what they do, since they do not practice what they preach.” What Jesus said of the scribes and Pharisees applies to everyone who is being a hypocrite. That means you and me and Peter and Paul and the pope. Again, Peter was being corrected for his actions, not his teachings. It’s clearly in the context of the passage.

quote:

quote:

And are you sure you want to argue that Peter, or any of the Apostles for that matter, were fallible in their teachings?
Actually, there is no problem "going there".

Actually there is. By your assertion, the early church could not trust the teachings of the Apostles. They would have to wait until the Apostles wrote something down before it was infallible. And then they would have to learn to read. And then they would have to be convinced that what was written was truly inspired. And then they would have to read it for themselves to decide what it means. Thank the Good Lord that the earliest Christians were Jewish and not Protestant! They understood authoritative teaching. They understood “semicha” and what was required of it. They understood “bind and loose”.
quote:

However, we can know for an absolute certainty that what they wrote was without error because God says only of Scripture that it is inspired.
Yes but it was these very Apostles that wrote it! If someone outside the authority of the church wrote a letter and claimed it was inspired by God (which happened many times), did this make it so? Of course not! The N.T. scriptures are writings of what the Apostles learned from Jesus and were inspired to put into writing. The NT scriptures come from God through the church Jesus established and breathed His Spirit upon, not the other way around. The church was founded on Jesus and the Apostles. This is why the ancient creeds, some of which your own church agrees to, say we believe in an “apostolic church”.

quote:

Regardless of protestations to the contrary, it's quite obvious that RC as a "Bible-lite" church does not "venerate" Scripture. They've made that clear in many different posts.
As a former member of many Protestant and “bible only” fellowships, I can personally attest to the falseness of this derogatory remark.

quote:

Hmm, now we have Paul's inspired words being referred to as "man made"...and they want to say they "venerate" Scripture?

No – Paul’s words are not man made. The 200 year old interpretations of them are. Neither Paul nor any of the Apostles ever taught of a secret “rapture” where Jesus comes to take Christians away and then comes again later ( a second and third coming???). If they did, it was forgotten about for 1700 years. Kelman – as a member of the Reformed Church, I would think you would agree with me on this. The Reformed Church does not accept these pre-tribulation dispensationalist teachings common in American Evangelical churches. Has something changed?



Page: <<   < prev  289 290 [291] 292 293   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI