|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/28/2009 5:33:23 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5090
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
quote:
There isn't a singular Christian "take on it"....there are a number of varying views concerning eschatology.
If the Bible was meant to be a Christian's sole authority, shouldn't there be only one? Why would you think that? Scripture is infallible people are not. Besides, you have examples of this right within your own church, one papal “utterance” disavowed by another papal “utterance”.
quote:
quote:
LOL...your final authority doesn't offer much of anything very "official" on the matter....doesn't make him much of an authority, now does it? Actually, RC has commented "officially" on very little within the Bible.
And yet the majority of posts opposing the idea of a papacy seem to all imply the Pope being some sort of tyrant, "lording" over his flock, keeping Catholics away from the "truth" of scripture, assuring Catholics can't think for themselves. Very ironic. Well, historically some popes did actually "lord" it over their flock and the rest of Christiandom. And yes they did, in fact, keep truth(the Bible) from their people at least for as long as they were able to.
quote:
So, what is it really about the papacy that causes you so much trouble? (other than the funny hat and all)
Truth be told, I actually like his "funny hat"....his gospel?...not so much.
quote:
Scripture is infallible people are not.
But your still missing something. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide his apostles to the truth. So according to Christ there shouldn't be disagreements. And the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles as they penned Scripture. When their work was through, they died and we see from Scripture that God appointed no successors to them. Christ never promised there would be no disagreements. We see these right from the start. We even see some of the apostolic churches descend into what appears to be satanic rule with almost no one remaining faithful. So, there was no protection for a church which was started even by an Apostle.
quote:
quote:
Well, historically some popes did actually "lord" it over their flock and the rest of Christiandom. And yes they did, in fact, keep truth(the Bible) from their people at least for as long as they were able to
See, Catholics get this bit alot. This statement is made from the lens of protestant tradition. If this is true, show us some specific examples of a Pope keeping scripture from people. (True versions of scripture, not Bibles full of errors that were ordered burned) Who got to decided what was the "true" version of the Bible...your pope? No, your church burned Bibles and the people who translated them. You know this as well as anyone. And the papal injunctions against the free reading of Scripture have been posted here in the past.
quote:
quote:
Truth be told, I actually like his "funny hat"....his gospel?...not so much
I like the hat too...  There is only one Gospel.
Yes, there is only one true Gospel. But, there those who have corrupted that one true Gospel.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/28/2009 11:12:39 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 342
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
Tfan –
I’m not sure what the “eye roll” emoticon is all about. Is it unreasonable that I request evidence that others support your view? Some have taken interest in your interpretation of the reason Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem. Why withhold evidence from the brothers?
quote:
Ah - you assumed based on me not quoting them that they don't agree with me? LOL!
If “they” agree with you, all I’m asking for is some evidence. You’ve stated why you would withhold this evidence from me, but why withhold it from others?
quote:
You're drawing a false dichotomy and misrepresenting what I said. The Judaizers claimed to come from Jerusalem (where the apostles were), and specifically from James, as we've already shown.
You are 100% correct – the Judaizers came from Jerusalem. No one is arguing as I’ve stated multiple times. Ok? What we are discussing is WHY they went to Jerusalem. Acts 15:2 very clearly states why they went to Jerusalem. Do you not agree that they went “to the apostles and the elders about this question”?
quote:
Well ... surprisingly perhaps ... your calling it "wrong" without ever providing a rebuttal to it doesn't particularly impress me. Perhaps it will give some warm fuzzies to folks who don't have time to read the discussion but would like to think that you had provided some sort of rebuttal.
When I said that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to settle the dispute in Antioch with the apostles, you said that was wrong and that they went to Jerusalem to “track down the source of the error”. Here, once again, is my rebuttal:
Acts 15:2 …. “And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
Paul and Barnabas were sent by the Church in Antioch to resolve the dispute with the Apostles. This shows that the elders of the Church in Antioch clearly did not recognize themselves as the final authority. By Paul and Barnabas’ consent, they too did not recognize themselves as the final authority (though they certainly authoritatively represented the universal church). The Council of Jerusalem was the final authority. It was the final authority, not because of it’s location, but because of who was present.
This account from sacred scripture shows that Congregationalism was not the form of church governance practiced by the Church of Antioch, the Church of Jerusalem, or endorsed by Paul or any of the apostles. They instead recognized the idea of an authoritative, tangible, universal church, complete with authoritative leadership, hence, the gathering in Jerusalem to settle a doctrinal dispute.
Tfan concedes that “extreme congregationalism” is wrong and that this is based on scripture. On this we agree as is clearly supported by Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem. What I’m not certain of is how “extreme congregationalism” differs from congregationalism. I was hoping Tfan would explain but instead he claims it is not relevant to this thread. Well it is.
I’m assuming that by “extreme congregationalism”, Tfan means a local Christian fellowship that acts entirely independent from the rest of the universal church. (help me out Tfan). “Not-so-extreme” congregationalism would be a “local church” that is governed by elders but also appeals to some sort of larger ecclesial entity (e.g. Southern Baptist Convention).
So how does this relate to the notion of an earthly leader of the universal church? For now, I’ll answer the question with a question. At what point does congregationalism become “extreme”? When a pastor disagrees with a group of elders and goes off and starts his own church? (a real situation I experienced) Or if an associate pastor disagrees with the pastor and goes off and forms his own church? (another experience of mine) Or say a church in Antioch disagrees with a church in Jerusalem and instead of reforming, rejects an apostolic letter and becomes it’s own authority? (this is a hypothetical)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/28/2009 1:10:07 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
kelman,
quote:
Are you saying the pope is not considered by your church to be the "vicar of Christ"? If so, I suggest you search your own literature. And most assuredly your pope is not "elected by representatives of the universal church". He's simply elected by your denomination.
Great point.......not to mention that papal seats were also sold!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_IX
Simony;
"Simony did serious harm to the moral standing of the Roman Catholic Church. Dante Alighieri condemns simonists to the eighth circle of hell in his Inferno, where he encounters Pope Nicholas III buried upside down, the soles of his feet burning with oil, in a mock baptism. Dante goes on to predict the damnation of both Pope Boniface VIII, the Pope in office at the time the Divine Comedy is set, and Pope Clement V, his successor, for that sin."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simony
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/29/2009 7:26:47 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
Terretinfan,
Are you the same dude who tried to debate Dave Armstrong and then gave up? If so, I think you were pretty much trumped on most of your interpretations. So did you come back here to the rookie level to sooth your wounds? Still isn't helping is it?
Otis.
Otis,
Nope. You must have me confused with someone else.
But - interestingly enough - Dave Armstrong has mostly given up debating Reformed Christians these days. Has been like that for about the last year and a half. It's no great loss for the apologetic world, because Mr. Armstrong's arguments were never very sound.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/29/2009 8:27:34 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
Tfan –
I’m not sure what the “eye roll” emoticon is all about. It's about your wasting of my time with personal attacks and requests for evidence that you would never accept. I don't have time for that.
quote:
quote:
You're drawing a false dichotomy and misrepresenting what I said. The Judaizers claimed to come from Jerusalem (where the apostles were), and specifically from James, as we've already shown. You are 100% correct – the Judaizers came from Jerusalem.No one is arguing as I’ve stated multiple times. Ok? What we are discussing is WHY they went to Jerusalem. Well, unless you are trying to suggest that it was just a coincidence that they went to the place from which the Judaizers came, then that evidence (which you have admitted) goes toward answer the question "Why?" In other words, they went to Jerusalem not to say, Damascus, because the Judaizers were from Jerusalem.
quote:
Acts 15:2 very clearly states why they went to Jerusalem. Do you not agree that they went “to the apostles and the elders about this question”? Of course. Both things are true - they went to Jerusalem (i.e. to the apostles and elders at Jersusalem) about this issue of the Judaizers. That's the only thing that makes sense with what you've already agreed to above (unless, of course, it's just a lucky coincidence). That's been my position from the start. But that doesn't then translate into it being an appeal or resort to a universal council.
quote:
quote:
Well ... surprisingly perhaps ... your calling it "wrong" without ever providing a rebuttal to it doesn't particularly impress me. Perhaps it will give some warm fuzzies to folks who don't have time to read the discussion but would like to think that you had provided some sort of rebuttal. When I said that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to settle the dispute in Antioch with the apostles, you said that was wrong and that they went to Jerusalem to “track down the source of the error”. Here, once again, is my rebuttal:
Acts 15:2 …. “And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.” Already addressed numerous times, including the times above.
quote:
Paul and Barnabas were sent by the Church in Antioch to resolve the dispute with the Apostles. Undoubtedly going to Jerusalem to "track down the source of the error" was aimed at resolving this disturbance caused by the Judaizers. So, to at least a limited extent, your comment is correct.
quote:
This shows that the elders of the Church in Antioch clearly did not recognize themselves as the final authority. One might argue that it shows that the elders of the church at Antioch did not recognize Paul the apostle and Barnabas (who is also sometimes called an apostle) to be the final authorities. Surely you would not reject what Paul and Barnabas taught?! But the Judaizers claimed to be from James, from Jerusalem. Therefore, it was necessary to up to Jerusalem and deal with these men and with James (if indeed, James was teaching this). Recall that Paul had to convince Barnabas and Peter at Antioch, so it wasn't out of the question that Paul might have to come to Jerusalem and also convince James.
As for "final authority," the "final authority" as we saw from the text of Acts 15 was the Scriptures - especially those of the Old Testament. That's what settled the matter for James, providing the necessary confirmation for the experience of the apostles.
In the end, the Judaizers were exposed as not having had James' authority for their teaching. James and the Jerusalem church confirmed that the Judaizers did not have authority from them. This meant that the error had been tracked down and Paul's teaching at Antioch had been confirmed. If this had been a judicial proceeding against Paul and Barnabas for heresy (or something like that) one would expect the churchmen of Antioch to themselves accompany Paul and Barnabas to serve as their accusers at this council, which would then render the delegation to Antioch unnecessary. But since instead this was a less formal quest, the delegation back to Antioch was necessary.
quote:
By Paul and Barnabas’ consent, they too did not recognize themselves as the final authority (though they certainly authoritatively represented the universal church). What you're suggesting is that a universal council has higher authority than an individual apostle. Note, however, that the text does not say this. Furthermore, as pointed out above, the reason for going to Jerusalem was not to go to a council meeting, but to go to the place from whence the Judaizers came. Paul is very clear that his authority is not less than the other apostles (see the first few chapters of Galatians).
quote:
The Council of Jerusalem was the final authority. No, the Word of God was the final authority - even to the assembly of the church at Jerusalem. They were wooed by the evidence but they were won by Scripture. And, as noted above, the reason for going to Jerusalem, from the text, is not to seek higher or final authority, but to go to where the Judaizers claimed to have come from.
quote:
It was the final authority, not because of it’s location, but because of who was present. No, the authority of the apostles came from their appointment by Jesus. Paul had no less authority than the other apostles. The Jerusalem church had a special measure of authority in an informal sense both in that it had James and some of the other apostles but also because persecution had made it the "mother church" of many of the early Christians who ran from Jerusalem into the surrounding areas (including, of course, Antioch, as we've already seen).
quote:
This account from sacred scripture shows that Congregationalism was not the form of church governance practiced by the Church of Antioch, the Church of Jerusalem, or endorsed by Paul or any of the apostles. To the extent that you make a council the final authority (as you have above), your proof is a proof that the papacy was not the form of church governance practiced by the Church of Antioch, the Church of Jerusalem, or endorsed by Paul or any of the apostles. Furthermore, while I fully agree that congregationalism is wrong, this passage is only a partial proof of that - because there is no clear judicial appeal taking place to show the assembly at Jerusalem to be a higher court. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the authority of the apostles was unique.
quote:
They instead recognized the idea of an authoritative, tangible, universal church, complete with authoritative leadership, hence, the gathering in Jerusalem to settle a doctrinal dispute. There are a couple of missing elements to support your claim here. "Tangible" seems to be purely rhetorical. It was a time of persecution, and as a social structure the churches were not "tangible" in the ordinary sense of the word. Next, nothing in the text speaks of a "universal church." There is a church at Antioch, which is a sort of daughter church of the church at Jerusalem. The assembly at Jerusalem writes not to the "universal church" but to Gentiles only and only to the Gentiles in and around Antioch. We are not told that anyone came to Jerusalem for this assembly except those who came from Antioch. Finally, of course, no one doubts that the apostles had authority - but the letter from the church at Jerusalem was not simply from the apostles, or even simply from the apostles and elders, but from the apostles, elders, and brethren. It is quite odd to imagine that the brethren at Jerusalem (in addition to the apostles and elders) would have any special authority over other churches.
quote:
Tfan concedes that “extreme congregationalism” is wrong and that this is based on scripture. On this we agree as is clearly supported by Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem. What I’m not certain of is how “extreme congregationalism” differs from congregationalism. I was hoping Tfan would explain but instead he claims it is not relevant to this thread. Well it is. 
quote:
So how does this relate to the notion of an earthly leader of the universal church? For now, I’ll answer the question with a question. Not too surprising, really.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/29/2009 9:16:25 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1174
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Not too surprising, really. What I continue to see in this series of posts are people trying have a discussion about a topic with their opinions being shaped by the authority of the instruction of a 2,000 year old institution traceable back to the Apostles, and another guy offering opinions based on the authority of...self.
Some here have quoted the Church fathers and Roman Catholic Catechism for example to support their interpretations and understanding of Jesus's instruction, while others have not quoted anyone, only offered their own personal view and opinion of the same.
It's a free country - and to some extents one may express what they wish here (...under the ever-watchful eye of Betty Davis...). But the problem I continue to assert here is the problem of authority. I know who the Pope is, I know how he got where he is at. I knew his predecessor, and the one before him. I suppose I can extrapolate this experience back to the times where I was not alive to directly encounter the work of these people.
And then on the other hand, we have this lone, anonymous poster - nameless and faceless, except for a picture of...Calvin, I guess is who that is...who quotes no one in support of opinions offered ("Are your views shared by anyone...?"), but just presumes authority because...well, frankly, I don't know why authority is presumed.
Who are you? What is your background? Why should I listen to you? You can go on-line in several different places and check my posts against the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.
And I check you opinions against...? What?
...and the valid answer is not "Scriptures"... We are using the same New Testament, and the same set of inked characters on paper to come up with different versions of a single truth. When you tell me that "this guy's view is wrong, because 'this' means 'that', and not what he says...", where do I verify that at? Who else agrees with you? And just who are they?
Are they Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and other folks who were within a generation or two of the Apostles. Or are they other folks - over 1,500 years removed from direct interaction of the Apostles, operating under their own presumed authority?
I don't see any resolution to these huge, long posts if one side is saying "Stop lights are red" and the other is saying "Stop lights are green", and the best argument one side can come up with is "...because I said so...".
So what?
P. S. - I am now going back up and reading some of the posts, only to see that my view has been similarly voiced above. Sorry for the repeat, but...this is an issue, apparently.
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 6/29/2009 9:31:43 AM >
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/29/2009 9:30:23 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1174
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Please outline the Pope's Gospel so that we can see if indeed it is the "one Gospel" you refer to. ...An English Translation of it is HERE.
Interpretation and commentary is HERE
Those who may offer authoritative interpretation and assistance, and are in charge of the teaching function are HERE
Where may I link to similar earthly authorities regarding your views? I mean - none of us are born believing what we believe, we are instructed and nurtured into believing what we believe. You may follow the links to examine mine.
How do I do the same to examine yours?
By what authority do "we can see if indeed it is the..."? Who is "We" in that sentence? You, and who else?
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/29/2009 11:13:54 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
Not too surprising, really. What I continue to see in this series of posts are people trying have a discussion about a topic with their opinions being shaped by the authority of the instruction of a 2,000 year old institution traceable back to the Apostles, and another guy offering opinions based on the authority of...self.
Some here have quoted the Church fathers and Roman Catholic Catechism for example to support their interpretations and understanding of Jesus's instruction, while others have not quoted anyone, only offered their own personal view and opinion of the same.
It's a free country - and to some extents one may express what they wish here (...under the ever-watchful eye of Betty Davis...). But the problem I continue to assert here is the problem of authority. I know who the Pope is, I know how he got where he is at. I knew his predecessor, and the one before him. I suppose I can extrapolate this experience back to the times where I was not alive to directly encounter the work of these people.
And then on the other hand, we have this lone, anonymous poster - nameless and faceless, except for a picture of...Calvin, I guess is who that is...who quotes no one in support of opinions offered ("Are your views shared by anyone...?"), but just presumes authority because...well, frankly, I don't know why authority is presumed.
Who are you? What is your background? Why should I listen to you? You can go on-line in several different places and check my posts against the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.
And I check you opinions against...? What?
...and the valid answer is not "Scriptures"... We are using the same New Testament, and the same set of inked characters on paper to come up with different versions of a single truth. When you tell me that "this guy's view is wrong, because 'this' means 'that', and not what he says...", where do I verify that at? Who else agrees with you? And just who are they?
Are they Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and other folks who were within a generation or two of the Apostles. Or are they other folks - over 1,500 years removed from direct interaction of the Apostles, operating under their own presumed authority?
I don't see any resolution to these huge, long posts if one side is saying "Stop lights are red" and the other is saying "Stop lights are green", and the best argument one side can come up with is "...because I said so...".
So what?
P. S. - I am now going back up and reading some of the posts, only to see that my view has been similarly voiced above. Sorry for the repeat, but...this is an issue, apparently.
This thread is not about me. I'm not going to make it about me, and I'm not going to give much respect to folks who think that the way they should defend their church is by attacking its critics.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/29/2009 12:49:15 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1174
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
This thread is not about me. I'm not going to make it about me, and I'm not going to give much respect to folks who think that the way they should defend their Church is by attacking its critics. ...you have missed my point...
This thread is about the Pope, and for Roman Catholics the Pope lends a body, face and voice to the authority of the institution of Church. What we Catholics are trying to understand is the face and body of the authority by which non-Catholics come to arrive at the practice, definition and instruction of their faith. I used the previous discussions as an example - lots of flowing dialog and carefully crafted hypothesis, but...
...where's the authority? On the one hand, I see the Church Fathers, the Catechism, and the authority of the Pope. On the other hand, I am trying to see what the equivalent might be in the non-Catholic Church.
Lets take the Augsburg Confession, for example. I know next to nothing about this in all honesty - I had heard of it before and was able to successfully spell it into Google. It is the confession of faith submitted to Charles V in 1530. It is signed by John, Duke of Saxony, George, Margrave of Brandenburg, Ernest, Duke of Lueneberg, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, John Frederick, Duke of Saxony, Francis, Duke of Lueneburg, Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt, Senate and Magistracy of Nuremburg, Senate of Reutlingen, apparently.
Who are these men? From whom does their authority come? I suspect in the day, they would have said "Divine providence". I suppose I claim that for the Pope as well, Which leaves us...??? In a dead heat, draw or tie???
To be honest, it is the King who is the root of authority for these guys, so isn't this just a "rubber stamp" of sorts? And that the end of the day, this is an earthly sovereignty fight of King and Country verses another authority who lays claim to the Spiritual aspects of these two items. Which then gets back to authority. If Kings are the result of Divine providence, then we have a lot fewer of them these days, and the ones that are left have significantly different roles then they did back then.
...But the Pope is still around...
I mean...not to change the subject, but I think it is a legitimate question to ask in the context of a discussion about the Pope...
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/29/2009 3:35:35 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse quote:
This thread is not about me. I'm not going to make it about me, and I'm not going to give much respect to folks who think that the way they should defend their Church is by attacking its critics. ...you have missed my point... Or perhaps you missed mine. This is not about me. So questions like "Who are you? What is your background?" are not just irritating, but irrelevant.
quote:
This thread is about the Pope, and for Roman Catholics the Pope lends a body, face and voice to the authority of the institution of Church. What we Catholics are trying to understand is the face and body of the authority by which non-Catholics come to arrive at the practice, definition and instruction of their faith. I used the previous discussions as an example - lots of flowing dialog and carefully crafted hypothesis, but... Oh, I see. You had the impression that non-Roman Catholics have a single earthly leader? What a strange misconception. No. Although some non-Roman Catholics have such things (the Ecumenical Patriarch of the EOs or the King/Queen and/or Archbishop of Cantebury for Anglicans) in general we don't believe that "the Church" as such as has a single voice, face, etc. It's unity is found in its single source of authority, the Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
But nevertheless, if you try to make this personally about the popes, I think you're going to run into serious trouble. My suggestion is to stick to the office, not to the body, face, and voice of the man. That is, after all, the more standard view within your religion (Catholicism).
quote:
...where's the authority? On the one hand, I see the Church Fathers, the Catechism, and the authority of the Pope. On the other hand, I am trying to see what the equivalent might be in the non-Catholic Church. There's nothing equivalent - we (leaving aside a few groups like the EO) do not add further authorities of allegedly equal dignity on top of the Scriptures. That's one of the advantages of our system, because it avoids the petrification of human tradition that undermines the Word of God.
quote:
Lets take the Augsburg Confession, for example. I know next to nothing about this in all honesty - I had heard of it before and was able to successfully spell it into Google. It is the confession of faith submitted to Charles V in 1530. It is signed by John, Duke of Saxony, George, Margrave of Brandenburg, Ernest, Duke of Lueneberg, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, John Frederick, Duke of Saxony, Francis, Duke of Lueneburg, Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt, Senate and Magistracy of Nuremburg, Senate of Reutlingen, apparently.
Who are these men? From whom does their authority come? I suspect in the day, they would have said "Divine providence". I suppose I claim that for the Pope as well, Which leaves us...??? In a dead heat, draw or tie???
To be honest, it is the King who is the root of authority for these guys, so isn't this just a "rubber stamp" of sorts? And that the end of the day, this is an earthly sovereignty fight of King and Country verses another authority who lays claim to the Spiritual aspects of these two items. Which then gets back to authority. If Kings are the result of Divine providence, then we have a lot fewer of them these days, and the ones that are left have significantly different roles then they did back then. The Augsburg Confession does not rely on the authority of man, but appeals to Scripture. While this might have been made more clear, note the comments: "Neither must we submit to Catholic bishops if they chance to err, or hold anything contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God." and "If there is anything that any one might desire in this Confession, we are ready, God willing, to present ampler information according to the Scriptures."
quote:
...But the Pope is still around... The office, not the man.
quote:
I mean...not to change the subject, but I think it is a legitimate question to ask in the context of a discussion about the Pope... If you view the pope as the man, not the office. And if you do, I have a few very pointed questions to ask you about men who have been pope.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/29/2009 3:58:45 PM
|
|
|
JKaplan
Posts: 79
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
There's nothing equivalent - we (leaving aside a few groups like the EO) do not add further authorities of allegedly equal dignity on top of the Scriptures. That's one of the advantages of our system, because it avoids the petrification of human tradition that undermines the Word of God.
Huh?
I'm no profesional apologist, but coming from years of experience in the Baptist faith I can tell you that is no advantage whatsoever.
The protestant world is most definaltly steeped in it's own man made traditions, as I can personally atest. Believe it or not, a baptist pastor of an independent church is just as much of a "pope" as the Catholic Pope. Just try telling him after a sermon that you personally disagree with his interpretation of scripture and see how long it takes before your out the door under the guise of "church disipline".
But hey, you can alway brake away and form your own church, right?
And being 'reformed" means you have some how disagreed with a previous interpretation of scripture used by some other branch of protestantism. The irony is you all use the same "scripture only" authoritative model.
True sola scriptura is self refuting and very few actually practice it. The rest is a mixture of sola scriptura and man made traditions of ones own brand of protestantism.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/29/2009 4:12:30 PM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 1440
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm no profesional apologist, but coming from years of experience in the Baptist faith I can tell you that is no advantage whatsoever.
The protestant world is most definaltly steeped in it's own man made traditions, as I can personally atest. Believe it or not, a baptist pastor of an independent church is just as much of a "pope" as the Catholic Pope. Just try telling him after a sermon that you personally disagree with his interpretation of scripture and see how long it takes before your out the door under the guise of "church disipline".
While this may be true in churches that you have attended or do attend, I do not think that you can state this for all unless you are talking about salvic doctrines. At any rate, the situation you describe is indeed much like having a pope. I do not recognize any one person containing that much authority.
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/30/2009 1:38:31 AM
|
|
|
JKaplan
Posts: 79
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
I'm no profesional apologist, but coming from years of experience in the Baptist faith I can tell you that is no advantage whatsoever.
The protestant world is most definaltly steeped in it's own man made traditions, as I can personally atest. Believe it or not, a baptist pastor of an independent church is just as much of a "pope" as the Catholic Pope. Just try telling him after a sermon that you personally disagree with his interpretation of scripture and see how long it takes before your out the door under the guise of "church disipline".
While this may be true in churches that you have attended or do attend, I do not think that you can state this for all unless you are talking about salvic doctrines. At any rate, the situation you describe is indeed much like having a pope. I do not recognize any one person containing that much authority.
I agree you can't state this for all. I suppose I will qualify the comment for those on these threads that continually use the Papacy as a springboard to attack the Catholic Church. They somehow think either they or their particular denomination have "figured it out" and have no use for any authority besides themselves or their particular interpretations of scripture.
Comments such as this is what I mean.
quote:
That's one of the advantages of our system, because it avoids the petrification of human tradition that undermines the Word of God.
Wether it is Calvinism, Lutherinism, Methodism or whatever brand of protestantism you prefer, they are all originated from the minds of men, and are steeped in man made "tradition".
If I took you through a week in the life of an independent Baptist, 90% of it would be tradition of men.
It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
The old Catholic Church and "traditions of men" routine is quite boring indeed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/30/2009 3:51:33 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5090
Status: offline
|
quote:
nterpretation and commentary is HERE Nope, most is just reiteration of RC doctrines....i.e., mortal versus venial sin.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/30/2009 8:04:05 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Doghouse,
quote:
This thread is about the Pope, and for Roman Catholics the Pope lends a body, face and voice to the authority of the institution of Church. What we Catholics are trying to understand is the face and body of the authority by which non-Catholics come to arrive at the practice, definition and instruction of their faith.
You are right....the pope lends a body, face, and voice to the authority in the RCC and many people in the RCC look to popes as an authority figure even when they speak or do things void of truth.
Why is he allowed to interpret what is truth and no other person can?
But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."
quote:
...But the Pope is still around...
I mean...not to change the subject, but I think it is a legitimate question to ask in the context of a discussion about the Pope...
Yes he is still around......and I would be careful about some of the things that he teaches.
In the end, I am responsible for what I believe in my own heart and mind....not Peter or the pope.
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/30/2009 8:44:33 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Doghouse,
"TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE"
How would you interpret that statement?
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/30/2009 9:45:20 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SanJose quote:
There's nothing equivalent - we (leaving aside a few groups like the EO) do not add further authorities of allegedly equal dignity on top of the Scriptures. That's one of the advantages of our system, because it avoids the petrification of human tradition that undermines the Word of God. Huh? You sound confused, let's see if we can remedy that.
quote:
I'm no profesional apologist, but coming from years of experience in the Baptist faith I can tell you that is no advantage whatsoever. Baptists can get petrified in their traditions too. But - the pastor changes and a lot of that petrified tradition can get tossed out the window. When the pope changes, it's much harder to revise the traditions in Catholicism.
quote:
The protestant world is most definaltly steeped in it's own man made traditions, as I can personally atest. No doubt. I would never suggest otherwise.
quote:
Believe it or not, a baptist pastor of an independent church is just as much of a "pope" as the Catholic Pope. It might seem that way, but he'd never actually claim infallibility - at least I've never heard of baptist preachers who did.
quote:
Just try telling him after a sermon that you personally disagree with his interpretation of scripture and see how long it takes before your out the door under the guise of "church disipline". Not to endorse any abuse of authority, but if someone's "personal opinion" is out of line, and they won't heed the church's teachings, then they should be disciplined even to the point of excommunication if necessary. Relativism is not a Christian doctrine.
quote:
But hey, you can alway brake away and form your own church, right? That's not what the Reformers taught, though it is a seemingly common view among "Protestants" (broadly defined) today. That's partly because a lot "Protestants" like a lot of "Catholics" don't take authority very seriously. I blame "western" culture, but you probably blame something else.
quote:
And being 'reformed" means you have some how disagreed with a previous interpretation of scripture used by some other branch of protestantism. Actually "Reformed" refers to the restoration of the truly Catholic faith by the Reformers prior to the Council of Trent (which petrified human tradition, anathematized the gospel, and made secession from Rome a matter of necessity).
quote:
The irony is you all use the same "scripture only" authoritative model. It's not that ironic. The church fathers used the same model of giving only Scripture ultimate authority in matters of doctrine and morals.
quote:
True sola scriptura is self refuting and very few actually practice it. The rest is a mixture of sola scriptura and man made traditions of ones own brand of protestantism. It's possible that what you consider "true sola scriptura" is actually the straw man propaganda that Roman Catholic apologists put out. True sola scriptura is one of the principles of the Reformation, it is a restoration of the ultimacy of Scripture. It is an affirmation of the sufficiency of Scripture, it is an affirmation of the perspicuity of Scripture (as to the necessary things), and it is a position that says that anyone else claiming to have equal authority to Scripture must prove it.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/30/2009 2:45:12 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1174
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Doghouse,
"TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE"
How would you interpret that statement?
...The penitent sinner receives salvation through the crucified Jesus. Jesus' words to the penitent thief reveal Luke's understanding that the destiny of the Christian is "to be with Jesus."... this is only recounted in Luke, for whatever reason...
This is recognized in Catholic instruction as a "perfect act of contrition". Many Catholics grew up hearing this from the nuns in school.
What has that got to do with the current discussion...?
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/30/2009 2:49:04 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1174
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
True sola scriptura is one of the principles of the Reformation, it is a restoration of the ultimacy of Scripture. It is an affirmation of the sufficiency of Scripture, it is an affirmation of the perspicuity of Scripture (as to the necessary things), and it is a position that says that anyone else claiming to have equal authority to Scripture must prove it.
From the Catholic perspective and observation, if the authority is Scripture, then why so many variants of interpretation? Catholics believe that the Deposit of Faith is the authority, but context, culture, tradition and history are the lens through which it is interpreted.
Protestants seem to be able to use any lens they care to, or can lay their hands on...hence all the different practices, standards, instruction, requirements, etc.
Just an opinion.
quote:
That's one of the advantages of our system, because it avoids the petrification of human tradition that undermines the Word of God. ...with the biggest disadvantage being the lack of standard or agreement that may be arrived at from council and diligence. After all, the opposite of petrified is "fluid", "dynamic" or perhaps even "vapid".
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 6/30/2009 2:59:58 PM >
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/30/2009 2:53:26 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1174
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why is he allowed to interpret what is truth and no other person can? ...interpretation is actually a thorough process that involves many people...
The Pope is what voices the interpretation rendered with the authority of the Church. The final "stamp of approval".
Can the Pope veto the team? Yes. Can the team veto the Pope? Only with their feet...just like every other Roman Catholic. Somehow, the Catholic Church has managed to hang on.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/30/2009 8:46:29 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Doghouse,
quote:
...The penitent sinner receives salvation through the crucified Jesus. Jesus' words to the penitent thief reveal Luke's understanding that the destiny of the Christian is "to be with Jesus."... this is only recounted in Luke, for whatever reason...
This is recognized in Catholic instruction as a "perfect act of contrition". Many Catholics grew up hearing this from the nuns in school.
What has that got to do with the current discussion...?
I think it has everything to do with the discussion and your own words prove that it does.
From what you have given me in your interpretation.....not only did the sinner on the cross need neither a pope or the RCC.....but any other sinner that "receives salvation through the crucified Jesus" does not need the popes, the crucified popes, the RCC, or the crucified RCC.
Matter solved even with your own interpretation.
So......purgatory, rosary beads, sacred candles....and all the other RCC junk that popes promote can now be sold on e-bay if anybody wants it all.
I dont want any of it.
My bid.......nothing.
Thanks for at least being honest in your interpretation.
Take care,
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/1/2009 9:11:13 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1174
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Matter solved even with your own interpretation. ...maybe in your mind...
Nowadays, since Jesus isn't there beside us to speak to us in the flesh, we have what He left us - the institution of Church. This institution has the authority to "bind and loose", etc., and it was given this authority by Jesus. It is in the Sacrament of Penance that we may seek contrition and a mending of the relationship with God which we have severed through our free choices of thoughts, words and deeds in the case of sin. This is what was going on with the thief - Jesus loosing those sins and absolving the thief of his wrongs, after a confession and an act of contrition, in faith.
Which version of Scriptures do you read to come to your "jump to" conclusion above? The Reader's Digest Abridged Version?
What is demonstrated by my interpretation is the need for Jesus to speak directly to us, recognizing Jesus having ascended and sitting at the right hand of the Father. Anticipating this eventual relationship with us, He left us His real presence and His authority - its all right there in Scriptures, and is being discussed in this thread and others. His presence is available to us through the Eucharist He has instructed to us via the Deposit of Faith, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which has also been left to us. The architecture of Jesus for the model of Church is sound and exists to this day.
That some reject that model and choose to go their own way in terms of discernment, interpretation, and practices is to their own loss and detriment. This is what is demonstrated in your post - how many also share this gap in the example of Jesus speaking to the Thief on the Cross, and how discernment forms the definition of faith and shape its practice today?
These types of erroneous discernment and wild conclusions and lead me to believe - yes, indeed, we all need a Pope in our Faith development and instruction. My post above simply stated that in the absence of a careful and thoughtful discernment, and the authorization of the findings of that discernment, under the guidance of the Holy spirit, some will erroneously interpret that we may dispense with Jesus's instruction for us - in many different ways and areas of practice.
Just like what was done above.
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 7/1/2009 9:19:30 AM >
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/1/2009 1:56:22 PM
|
|
|
JKaplan
Posts: 79
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
|
TF,
quote:
You sound confused, let's see if we can remedy that.
I appreciate your concern, but no confusion here.
quote:
Baptists can get petrified in their traditions too. But - the pastor changes and a lot of that petrified tradition can get tossed out the window. When the pope changes, it's much harder to revise the traditions in Catholicism.
That's your response? So you agree that protestantism is steeped in petrified tradtions? So your comments about the Catholic Church are just a double standard. I'm glad you can admit it.
quote:
It might seem that way, but he'd never actually claim infallibility - at least I've never heard of baptist preachers who did.
So according to you, practicing infallibility and claiming it are different somehow?
quote:
Not to endorse any abuse of authority, but if someone's "personal opinion" is out of line, and they won't heed the church's teachings, then they should be disciplined even to the point of excommunication if necessary. Relativism is not a Christian doctrine.
How could it be? If I disagree with my pastors personal interpretation of scripture because of my personal interpretation of scripture it seems the best we can hope for is a draw. Why should I be disciplined? According to the doctrine of sola scriptura, I have every right to pick up a Bible and interpret it with the guidence of the Holy Spirit. The protestant reformation was based on that principle.
quote:
That's not what the Reformers taught, though it is a seemingly common view among "Protestants" (broadly defined) today. That's partly because a lot "Protestants" like a lot of "Catholics" don't take authority very seriously. I blame "western" culture, but you probably blame something else.
They did brake away and start their own churches. So your saying they didn't teach it but did it anyway? The old "do as I say, not as I do" routine. That's original. And yes, I agree both Protestants and Catholics don't take authority very seriously. It is a "western" culture problem. The only difference is the Catholic church has been the authority since the apostles. Was the protestant reformation part of this "western" problem with authority mentality? Calvin and Luther must have been very "western". Go figure.
quote:
Actually "Reformed" refers to the restoration of the truly Catholic faith by the Reformers prior to the Council of Trent (which petrified human tradition, anathematized the gospel, and made secession from Rome a matter of necessity).
Do you include Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, non-denominational Christians as "reformed"? These denominations are all the "true" Catholic faith? What if they don't believe in the five points of Calvinism? What if they believe in baptismal regeneration? What if they believe communion is more that merely symbolic? What if they beleive you can lose your salvation? Did Christ intend his one true church to have such a wide variety of beliefs? Even to the point of such bitter division?
quote:
It's not that ironic. The church fathers used the same model of giving only Scripture ultimate authority in matters of doctrine and morals
That's interesting. The Roman Catholic faith is based on the doctrine and morals of the church fathers. A closet Roman Catholic after all.
quote:
it is an affirmation of the perspicuity of Scripture (as to the necessary things), and it is a position that says that anyone else claiming to have equal authority to Scripture must prove it.
quote:
(as to the necessary things)
On what "authority" do you determine this? Since scripture itself does not determine what is "necessary" who does? I think you just defined the problem with sola scriptura and protestantism as a whole. Good job.
.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/1/2009 2:11:25 PM
|
|
|
ushalk
Posts: 317
Joined: 4/15/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SanJose
TF,
quote:
You sound confused, let's see if we can remedy that.
I appreciate your concern, but no confusion here.
quote:
Baptists can get petrified in their traditions too. But - the pastor changes and a lot of that petrified tradition can get tossed out the window. When the pope changes, it's much harder to revise the traditions in Catholicism.
That's your response? So you agree that protestantism is steeped in petrified tradtions? So your comments about the Catholic Church are just a double standard. I'm glad you can admit it.
quote:
It might seem that way, but he'd never actually claim infallibility - at least I've never heard of baptist preachers who did.
So according to you, practicing infallibility and claiming it are different somehow?
quote:
Not to endorse any abuse of authority, but if someone's "personal opinion" is out of line, and they won't heed the church's teachings, then they should be disciplined even to the point of excommunication if necessary. Relativism is not a Christian doctrine.
How could it be? If I disagree with my pastors personal interpretation of scripture because of my personal interpretation of scripture it seems the best we can hope for is a draw. Why should I be disciplined? According to the doctrine of sola scriptura, I have every right to pick up a Bible and interpret it with the guidence of the Holy Spirit. The protestant reformation was based on that principle.
quote:
That's not what the Reformers taught, though it is a seemingly common view among "Protestants" (broadly defined) today. That's partly because a lot "Protestants" like a lot of "Catholics" don't take authority very seriously. I blame "western" culture, but you probably blame something else.
They did brake away and start their own churches. So your saying they didn't teach it but did it anyway? The old "do as I say, not as I do" routine. That's original. And yes, I agree both Protestants and Catholics don't take authority very seriously. It is a "western" culture problem. The only difference is the Catholic church has been the authority since the apostles. Was the protestant reformation part of this "western" problem with authority mentality? Calvin and Luther must have been very "western". Go figure.
quote:
Actually "Reformed" refers to the restoration of the truly Catholic faith by the Reformers prior to the Council of Trent (which petrified human tradition, anathematized the gospel, and made secession from Rome a matter of necessity).
Do you include Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, non-denominational Christians as "reformed"? These denominations are all the "true" Catholic faith? What if they don't believe in the five points of Calvinism? What if they believe in baptismal regeneration? What if they believe communion is more that merely symbolic? What if they beleive you can lose your salvation? Did Christ intend his one true church to have such a wide variety of beliefs? Even to the point of such bitter division?
quote:
It's not that ironic. The church fathers used the same model of giving only Scripture ultimate authority in matters of doctrine and morals
quote:
That's interesting. The Roman Catholic faith is based on the doctrine and morals of the church fathers. A closet Roman Catholic after all. quote:
it is an affirmation of the perspicuity of Scripture (as to the necessary things), and it is a position that says that anyone else claiming to have equal authority to Scripture must prove it.
quote:
(as to the necessary things)
On what "authority" do you determine this? Since scripture itself does not determine what is "necessary" who does? I think you just defined the problem with sola scriptura and protestantism as a whole. Good job.
.
yes you are right the catholic church is made up on the morals and values of men. not christ or the bible doctrine. amazing you just agreed with this. this is the point that proves that we do not need a pope.
_____________________________
if we hide the truth we kill a soul.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/1/2009 2:13:07 PM
|
|
|
ushalk
Posts: 317
Joined: 4/15/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ushalk
quote:
ORIGINAL: SanJose
TF,
quote:
You sound confused, let's see if we can remedy that.
I appreciate your concern, but no confusion here.
quote:
Baptists can get petrified in their traditions too. But - the pastor changes and a lot of that petrified tradition can get tossed out the window. When the pope changes, it's much harder to revise the traditions in Catholicism.
That's your response? So you agree that protestantism is steeped in petrified tradtions? So your comments about the Catholic Church are just a double standard. I'm glad you can admit it.
quote:
It might seem that way, but he'd never actually claim infallibility - at least I've never heard of baptist preachers who did.
So according to you, practicing infallibility and claiming it are different somehow?
quote:
Not to endorse any abuse of authority, but if someone's "personal opinion" is out of line, and they won't heed the church's teachings, then they should be disciplined even to the point of excommunication if necessary. Relativism is not a Christian doctrine.
How could it be? If I disagree with my pastors personal interpretation of scripture because of my personal interpretation of scripture it seems the best we can hope for is a draw. Why should I be disciplined? According to the doctrine of sola scriptura, I have every right to pick up a Bible and interpret it with the guidence of the Holy Spirit. The protestant reformation was based on that principle.
quote:
That's not what the Reformers taught, though it is a seemingly common view among "Protestants" (broadly defined) today. That's partly because a lot "Protestants" like a lot of "Catholics" don't take authority very seriously. I blame "western" culture, but you probably blame something else.
They did brake away and start their own churches. So your saying they didn't teach it but did it anyway? The old "do as I say, not as I do" routine. That's original. And yes, I agree both Protestants and Catholics don't take authority very seriously. It is a "western" culture problem. The only difference is the Catholic church has been the authority since the apostles. Was the protestant reformation part of this "western" problem with authority mentality? Calvin and Luther must have been very "western". Go figure.
quote:
Actually "Reformed" refers to the restoration of the truly Catholic faith by the Reformers prior to the Council of Trent (which petrified human tradition, anathematized the gospel, and made secession from Rome a matter of necessity).
Do you include Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, non-denominational Christians as "reformed"? These denominations are all the "true" Catholic faith? What if they don't believe in the five points of Calvinism? What if they believe in baptismal regeneration? What if they believe communion is more that merely symbolic? What if they beleive you can lose your salvation? Did Christ intend his one true church to have such a wide variety of beliefs? Even to the point of such bitter division?
quote:
It's not that ironic. The church fathers used the same model of giving only Scripture ultimate authority in matters of doctrine and morals
quote:
That's interesting. The Roman Catholic faith is based on the doctrine and morals of the church fathers. A closet Roman Catholic after all. quote:
it is an affirmation of the perspicuity of Scripture (as to the necessary things), and it is a position that says that anyone else claiming to have equal authority to Scripture must prove it.
quote:
(as to the necessary things)
On what "authority" do you determine this? Since scripture itself does not determine what is "necessary" who does? I think you just defined the problem with sola scriptura and protestantism as a whole. Good job.
.
yes you are right the catholic church is made up on the doctrines and values of men. not christ or the bible doctrine. amazing you just agreed with this. this is the point that proves that we do not need a pope.
_____________________________
if we hide the truth we kill a soul.
|
|
|
|
 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
