|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/1/2009 2:58:05 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse 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? Are you trying to suggest that people within Catholicism don't ever vary in their interpretation of their authority? If you are not then your criticism seems to be just criticizing people for being human.
quote:
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. Again, though, Roman Catholics variously interpret their own church's teachings. So, if it is a problem, it is a problem inherent in private judgment, and private judgment is inescapable.
quote:
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". It is good for human traditions to be held loosely.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/1/2009 3:56:00 PM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
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.
You might want to confer with TF before making statements like this. You guy's should get your stories straight before putting this stuff out for all to see.
You might also want to read up on St. Jerome and why although having a difference of opinion about certain books of the Bible, he ultimately accepted the authority of the Pope.
You might not need a pope as you say, but the Catholics on these forums are just fine with following the biblical model passed down from Christ and his apostles.
Peace
_____________________________
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/1/2009 5:31:25 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
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.
"No. not at all. Unless there is another anti-Catholic Terretifan out there. Do you think you can get away with this in todays world of the internet and google? A simple search of the web finds this:
The title above expresses the essential absurdity and incoherence of this man's outlook.
He has been hounding me to debate him. If I refuse it is -- so he claims -- because I am scared of his profound reasoning ability, etc. He thinks James White is great (as most anti-Catholics online do), but says nothing about the fact that White systematically ignores my critiques of his work and has refused, twice now, do do a live debate in his chat room.
That's fine. Why? Well, because I hate truth and am not serious enough to warrant White taking any of his time to reply to me (not because of the slightest inability or apprehension on his part). So there is that level of analysis, yet Turretinfan wants to debate me, even though I supposedly "hate truth", whereas Bishop White does not. Does this make any sense? Surely not to me. But one tries (thus far, in vain, in my case) to grasp the warped mindset that comes up with this nonsense."
For example your analysis and comments weaken your own position on this topic
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."
So the pastor aka a man can decide what is the truth or not? He doesn't think an interpretation of a passage is this so we can through it out---that is more power than a Catholic Pope! Luther did much the same...so good luck with that. BTW who is your pastor? How many times have you corrected him? No answer is the prediction....
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.
Please define and point out what "church teachings" you uphold?!
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/1/2009 6:16:18 PM
|
|
|
freeholder
Posts: 109
Joined: 2/15/2008
Status: offline
|
Holy Spirit.
"I leave a comforter. He will convict the world (John 16:8-11). He will intercede for you. He will teach you what to say."
He is eternal Heb.9:14; omnipresent (Ps. 139:7-13) APPOINTS AND SENDS MINISTERS (Acts 13:2,4;Matt 9:38;Acts 20:28; SANCTIFIES THE CHURCH (Ezek. 37:28, Rom. 15:16); DWELLS IN ALL SAINTS (John 14:17); TEACHES THE SAINTS (John 14:26); ENABLES MINISTERS TO TEACH (1 Cor. 12:8); His gifts are given to all saints for their instruction (Neh.9:20).
The Catholic system would seem to say that a man must intercede between us and God. I realize that is not the Pope's purpose stated here, yet he issues orders about how Scripture is to be interpreted (sometimes in conflict with other Pope's orders) and mostly these orders fall under the veil of infalability, the notion that the head of the Catholic church can do no wrong. This certainly says that a man must intercede and interpret the Scripture for us. Even though the indwelling of the Spirit says that all of us have some degree of ability to read and interpret Scripture.
The Papacy, through intermediaries, appoints and approves all ministers and sends them where they will. This also assumes the role of the Holy Spirit is in one man rather than many. Everything requires the Pope's approval or his seal to be official.
"Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant and whoever wants to be first must be slave to all."
I admire the resolve of Catholic Priests and nuns to keep the words of that and many to keep the intent of it. The Papacy itself undermines the work they do by saying the greatest among us is to be served by all. It undercuts that "if anyone wants to be first, he must be last."
We can get into the Borgias and all that if you like, but, let's just say there were Popes who didn't exactly live up to the idea of the Papacy and also undermined the office. (Maybe why celebacy became the vogue when your kids are busy messing up the politics you initially meant for them to correct.)
Catholicism merely has sevewral weakness of every church
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/1/2009 7:00:14 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1174
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Catholic system would seem to say that a man must intercede between us and God. I realize that is not the Pope's purpose stated here, yet he issues orders about how Scripture is to be interpreted (sometimes in conflict with other Pope's orders) and mostly these orders fall under the veil of infallibility, the notion that the head of the Catholic church can do no wrong. This certainly says that a man must intercede and interpret the Scripture for us. Even though the indwelling of the Spirit says that all of us have some degree of ability to read and interpret Scripture.
My thought on this post is that every time someone new comes in here, we have to immediately dispel the common mythology out there anew.
I encourage you to go back through this thread a couple of pages (or maybe even three...) and read the discussions. There are several erroneous understandings in the paragraph I quoted above, including the definition of infallibility. If you search on this term, I know I have participated in discussions at length on this subject in this very thread.
Man could not keep an institution or organization together for 2,000 years...especially considering some of the actions of the people making up that institution, as you noted. I believe something else is at work in this endeavor.
Some direct responses:
quote:
The Catholic system would seem to say that a man must intercede between us and God. ...uhh...no...The "Catholic" system does in fact recognize the "magisterium" - the passing of the instruction of Christ from the Apostles to their students, and from those students to their students, and so on - to the present day. "Pope" is an office, occupied by a man.
quote:
yet he issues orders about how Scripture is to be interpreted (sometimes in conflict with other Pope's orders) and mostly these orders fall under the veil of infallibility, the notion that the head of the Catholic church can do no wrong.
The Pope authorizes the interpretation of the Church, which may have actually been done by literally hundreds of people, working together and separately. There are no conflicts of the Popes through the ages in the area of practice and doctrine (ex-cathedra instructions and teachings) - cite me one if you believe it to be so, and we can discuss it. Infallibility has nothing to do with "doing no wrong" - the Pope is a sinner just like I am.
quote:
This certainly says that a man must intercede and interpret the Scripture for us. This is done in all practices of faith for children learning that faith, as an example. Why single the Catholics out? - everybody does this.
quote:
Even though the indwelling of the Spirit says that all of us have some degree of ability to read and interpret Scripture. Do you want "some degree" when seeking the instructions and the definition of a practice of faith, or would you rather have "most capable"? Why settle for "some degree" when you can put the task of discernment in the hands of people who are better than you at it?
...thoughts to ponder...
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/1/2009 8:42:36 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Doghouse,
quote:
...maybe in your mind...
Well........I only went by your own clear interpretation. 
Why dont you read your own post again?
Here it is;
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...?
The man needed no baptism by an RCC hired hand, he did not need to call on Mary the "queen of heaven" or any other "saint", he did not have to pretend bread was flesh and wine was blood, he did not have to light candles or carry special medallions, he did not have to pray in front of some urn containg dead mans bones, he did not have to purchase indulgence tickets, he did not have to say seventeen hail Marys, he did not have to confess to an RCC hired hand, he did not have to get down off the cross and do a bunch of good works, he did not have to believe in free-will.......and the list goes on and on of ALL the things that popes claim people should or need to be doing.
For all we know, the man lived a totally wreckless and sinful life until the bitter end and Jesus still saved the wretch! That is how simple it was and I can tell you it was not because a pope was drawing the man to Jesus. Jesus saved him without the aid of any of hired hands (popes).
So, while people (any person that God uses to preach the gospel) can be used by God....I can assure you it is not an exclusive to the pope!
quote:
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.
The pope aint beside me either to speak to me in the flesh.
quote:
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.
So are you telling me that if a person turns to Jesus Christ they are saved?
Sounds like a miracle!
How....direct and to the point. 
quote:
Which version of Scriptures do you read to come to your "jump to" conclusion above? The Reader's Digest Abridged Version?
Of course....which other version is there?
quote:
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.
Practices.....to their own loss?
This comes from the model popes that used to practice no charity on Christians that would not believe in free-will? This came from the model popes that gave the go ahead for kings to make perpetual slaves out of the peoples in other lands?
Practices indeed....but it was to their own loss when plundered by those that institute bad practices.
So what exactly have we lost......the presence of the pope beside us speaking to us in the flesh?
Why dont you examine my life from where you are and tell me just how un-blessed I am? Why dont you give me an exact and detailed list of all the lack in my life that has an actual effect on my life or salvation?
You have no idea who I feed, who I help, who I love and how much, who I clothe, how blessed my children are, who has helped me......the list goes on and on.
So what exactly do I miss.....following doctrines of popes telling me to believe bread is flesh or I should pray in front of urns containing the arm of some dead man?
quote:
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?
I think most of us have enough on our plates with trying to love others as ourselves.....and counting beads and chanting because a pope thinks it is good really does not fill that gap. Love is not shown by counting beads or praying in front of urns full of dead men.
Love is simply shown with actions of love. It is that simple and that hard.
quote:
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.
And in exactly what area was I lacking discernment when I used your own interpretation in regard to;
"TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE"
I did not even use my discernment......I asked you to interpret and you did so. I used your interpretation and discernment to show people just how much they dont need a pope......especially any pope that curses other Christians because they dont believe in free-will or something like that.
They are not models...............Jesus is the model.
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 9:33:53 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1709
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
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
This was a very adroit way to dodge the question. However, since the Council of Trent is still authoritative for both popes and Catholics, one only has to read this document carefully to see that the gospel of Trent and of all the popes is really a perversion of the true Gospel. Simultaneously, those who believe the true Gospel have been anathematized by the RCC.
quote:
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.
Actually you don't need any links to "earthly authorities" to examine my doctrine of salvation. Just open the Bible (KJV ) and you will find the Gospel were clearly presented. Try Acts chapter 2, the book of Romans, and 1 Cor. 15 for starters. The beauty of this Gospel is that it is the Word of God, which is the ultimate authority for all matters of faith and practice.
quote:
By what authority do "we can see if indeed it is the..."? Who is "We" in that sentence? You, and who else?
The "we" is all non-Catholics Christians who believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all Christians, and who believe and preach the true Gospel. And there are millions.
So the question of "authority" is really quite simple. Holy Scripture (the Word of God) is the only authority other than the Lord God Almighty. The popes have usurped this authority.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/2/2009 3:20:01 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5090
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
quote:
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.
You might want to confer with TF before making statements like this. You guy's should get your stories straight before putting this stuff out for all to see.
You might also want to read up on St. Jerome and why although having a difference of opinion about certain books of the Bible, he ultimately accepted the authority of the Pope. No, Jerome didn't "ultimately accepted the authority of the Pope". While he included some Apocrypha books in his translation, in his prologues he was careful to label them non-canonical.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/2/2009 3:23:12 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5090
Status: offline
|
quote:
Man could not keep an institution or organization together for 2,000 years...especially considering some of the actions of the people making up that institution, as you noted. I believe something else is at work in this endeavor.
Well, RC hasn't exactly kept it together now have they?...not through lack of trying, though....murders, tortures, imprisonments....
quote:
...uhh...no...The "Catholic" system does in fact recognize the "magisterium" - the passing of the instruction of Christ from the Apostles to their students, and from those students to their students, and so on - to the present day. "Pope" is an office, occupied by a man.
Nope, Christ passed His teaching to the Apostles who trained other men BUT, more importantly, at least according to Peter, they wrote it down so that we might always have the truth instead of just claims of truth.
For a fact, we know the truth has not always been forthcoming from the RC but mercifully God assures us as He says only of the written Word that it is inspired. So, now we actually do have infallible truth instead of supercilious claims to such.
Just as the Hebrews made the mistake of thinking their "circumcision" afforded them a special place with God so do those who think their churches afford them the same. The popes and the "magisterium" foster this aberration upon their members just as the Pharisees of Jesus' day. The Pharisees did the same...they said: "we've got the truth...only come follow us and our laws then all will be well with your soul".
quote:
There are no conflicts of the Popes through the ages in the area of practice and doctrine (ex-cathedra instructions and teachings) - cite me one if you believe it to be so, and we can discuss it. Many papal bulls "infallibly" declared that salvation was through the RC ALONE....now, of course, belief in Jesus Christ is even...well, I guess, obsolete. Seems now one "god" is as good as another. Looks like some popes got their "infallibility" crown rather tarnished with that one.
quote:
Why settle for "some degree" when you can put the task of discernment in the hands of people who are better than you at it? Indeed, why settle for obedience to God when you can be obedient to your church's teachings...as if it was God?
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."
"But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."
"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/2/2009 7:44:10 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
kelman,
quote:
ORIGINAL Doghouse; Man could not keep an institution or organization together for 2,000 years...especially considering some of the actions of the people making up that institution, as you noted. I believe something else is at work in this endeavor.
And what if we used that criteria on any other kingdom or institution like the world?
The world still exists......so to exist for a long time is not a measure or standard of truth.
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? - 7/2/2009 9:52:06 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 342
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
So the pastor aka a man can decide what is the truth or not? He doesn't think an interpretation of a passage is this so we can through it out---that is more power than a Catholic Pope! Luther did much the same...so good luck with that. BTW who is your pastor? How many times have you corrected him? No answer is the prediction....
This was my experience at a "Bible Only" church I attended for a year and a half. 45 minutes of preaching every Sunday and we just never happened to come across the scriptures that clearly refute once-saved-always-saved, or that clearly support baptismal regeneration, or about how our response to the Gospel (a.k.a. "works") plays a part in our salvation. In fact, we very rarely covered anything but Paul's epistles. If the biblical text seemed to oppose Calvinist teachings, the pastor ended up spending a great deal of his sermon twisting the scriptures to conform to his view. This particular church was built on a charismatic preacher and a worship band. I remember telling my wife what a great pastor we had but that the whole congregation seemed to focus too much on him. I told her if he were to ever leave, this "local church" would crumble. Six months later, he quit the ministry due to burn-out (bless his heart) and squabling with the "elders". Six months later, the flock was scattered.
Kelman - I see the Protestant man-made tradition of sola-scriptura has creeped into this discussion. In other forums I've asked someone to provide a reference to scripture where it states that ONLY scripture is inspired. To this day, I've never found one and no one has ever provided one. In fact, not even the Jewish people, our ancestors in faith, even make these man-made claims that started in the 1500s. When I look at scripture, I see that it makes the claim to be God-breathed and hence infallible, with which I fully agree, but I don't see where it states it is the only source of infallible truth. I do see that infallible scripture tells us that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/2/2009 12:27:38 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1174
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
The man needed no baptism by an RCC hired hand, he did not need to call on Mary the "queen of heaven" or any other "saint", he did not have to pretend bread was flesh and wine was blood, he did not have to light candles or carry special medallions, he did not have to pray in front of some urn containg dead mans bones, he did not have to purchase indulgence tickets, he did not have to say seventeen hail Marys, he did not have to confess to an RCC hired hand, he did not have to get down off the cross and do a bunch of good works, he did not have to believe in free-will.......and the list goes on and on of ALL the things that popes claim people should or need to be doing.
A Catholic would probably argue with you that the thief was indeed Baptized here, and that the Baptism he experienced is of a form that Catholics recognize for those who desire to come into full communion with Christians, and have taken the steps to do so, only to meet an untimely end before the actual performance for the Baptism.
The rest of your post I found to be an example of simply not understanding the office of the Pope within the Church, and the Pope's role within the practice of Faith for Catholics. You threw in a few other snarks, as well.
If a person turns to Jesus, they can be saved. So just what does "turn to Jesus" mean? It obviously means something entirely different to you than it does to me.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/2/2009 3:58:41 PM
|
|
|
JKaplan
Posts: 79
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
This was my experience at a "Bible Only" church I attended for a year and a half. 45 minutes of preaching every Sunday and we just never happened to come across the scriptures that clearly refute once-saved-always-saved, or that clearly support baptismal regeneration, or about how our response to the Gospel (a.k.a. "works") plays a part in our salvation. In fact, we very rarely covered anything but Paul's epistles. If the biblical text seemed to oppose Calvinist teachings, the pastor ended up spending a great deal of his sermon twisting the scriptures to conform to his view. This particular church was built on a charismatic preacher and a worship band. I remember telling my wife what a great pastor we had but that the whole congregation seemed to focus too much on him. I told her if he were to ever leave, this "local church" would crumble. Six months later, he quit the ministry due to burn-out (bless his heart) and squabling with the "elders". Six months later, the flock was scattered.
Almost very same experience here. The pastor of any given protestant church is just as much a "pope" as the one sitting in Rome today.
All the condemnation of the papacy on these threads is just a major double standard. The problem is the average Christian never really thinks about it that way, because they normally never question "authority".
That's why it just feels much better to criticize the beliefs of others so you can continue on pretending you got lucky enough to stumble into the "correct" church that is free of any faults.
.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/2/2009 10:04:10 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Doghouse,
quote:
A Catholic would probably argue with you that the thief was indeed Baptized here, and that the Baptism he experienced is of a form that Catholics recognize for those who desire to come into full communion with Christians, and have taken the steps to do so, only to meet an untimely end before the actual performance for the Baptism.
The rest of your post I found to be an example of simply not understanding the office of the Pope within the Church, and the Pope's role within the practice of Faith for Catholics. You threw in a few other snarks, as well.
If a person turns to Jesus, they can be saved. So just what does "turn to Jesus" mean? It obviously means something entirely different to you than it does to me.
Thanks for all that info.
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? - 7/3/2009 2:07:40 AM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
quote:
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.
You might want to confer with TF before making statements like this. You guy's should get your stories straight before putting this stuff out for all to see.
You might also want to read up on St. Jerome and why although having a difference of opinion about certain books of the Bible, he ultimately accepted the authority of the Pope. No, Jerome didn't "ultimately accepted the authority of the Pope". While he included some Apocrypha books in his translation, in his prologues he was careful to label them non-canonical.
He didn't accept the authority of the Pope?
Maybe Jerome was the first protestant.
How about some more revisionist history. Just for fun:
Jerome decides he is more of an "authority" then Pope Damasus 1 and decides to break away and form his own "church". It soon becomes know as "Jeromism" and spreads throughout the region. About 100 years after his death there are no fewer than 175 sub denominations of Jeromism all bitterly divided over the interpretation of Jeromes original interpretations.
Some of these denominations include;
Southern Jeromists
"Reformed" Jeromists
Free will Jeromists
Assemblies of Jeromism
Charismatic holiness Jeromists
Why do we need a Pope, you get the idea.
Peace
_____________________________
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/3/2009 2:12:47 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5090
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
quote:
So the pastor aka a man can decide what is the truth or not? He doesn't think an interpretation of a passage is this so we can through it out---that is more power than a Catholic Pope! Luther did much the same...so good luck with that. BTW who is your pastor? How many times have you corrected him? No answer is the prediction....
This was my experience at a "Bible Only" church I attended for a year and a half. 45 minutes of preaching every Sunday and we just never happened to come across the scriptures that clearly refute once-saved-always-saved, or that clearly support baptismal regeneration, or about how our response to the Gospel (a.k.a. "works") plays a part in our salvation. In fact, we very rarely covered anything but Paul's epistles. If the biblical text seemed to oppose Calvinist teachings, the pastor ended up spending a great deal of his sermon twisting the scriptures to conform to his view. Now claiming to be so scripturally literate as to state that the pastor "twisted" Scripture? Perhaps if you applied some of that alleged "literacy" and "private interpretation" to the teaching of popes, you might be surprised.
quote:
Kelman - I see the Protestant man-made tradition of sola-scriptura has creeped into this discussion. Dollars to donuts it was one of you guys who introduced the God given doctrine of Sola Scriptura into the discussion.
quote:
In other forums I've asked someone to provide a reference to scripture where it states that ONLY scripture is inspired. See....you're doing it again. If you've yet to see an answer, no doubt you haven't looked sufficiently.
quote:
To this day, I've never found one and no one has ever provided one. In fact, not even the Jewish people, our ancestors in faith, even make these man-made claims that started in the 1500s.
Of course, they don't make such claims since their religion is based almost exclusively on their man-made traditions - just like yours is. Their Talmud trumps the Tanakh just as your popes/magisterium/traditions whatever trumps the Bible.
quote:
When I look at scripture, I see that it makes the claim to be God-breathed and hence infallible, with which I fully agree, but I don't see where it states it is the only source of infallible truth. God says ONLY of Scripture that it is inspired - nothing else can make that claim - at least make it truthfully.
quote:
I do see that infallible scripture tells us that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
Of course, Scripture is not speaking of the Roman church since it didn't exist. Besides, that simply means the church is the caretaker of the written Word of God, the source of all truth because God says only of written Scripture that it is inspired. What the church does with Holy Scripture is really the issue.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/3/2009 5:37:36 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 342
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, RC hasn't exactly kept it together now have they?...not through lack of trying, though....murders, tortures, imprisonments....
Kelman – we’ve already established that there are sinners in the Catholic Church. Did you want me to provide evidence that shows this is a problem in Protestant churches as well?
quote:
Nope, Christ passed His teaching to the Apostles who trained other men BUT, more importantly, at least according to Peter, they wrote it down so that we might always have the truth instead of just claims of truth.
Right and the Apostles in turn passed these teachings and authority through apostolic succession. We see it in the bible and in the writings of the early church. This practice started with Moses and Joshua and is known to the Jewish people as “semicha”.
Moses said to the LORD, "Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation, who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD may not be as sheep which have no shepherd." And the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him; cause him to stand before Elea'zar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight. You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey. … and he laid his hands upon him, and commissioned him as the LORD directed through Moses. (Nm 27:15ff, RSV).
(I like the “sheep which have no shepherd” part. It kind of reminds me of Jesus telling Peter 3 different times to “feed my sheep”.)
“Bible only” Christians like to think that all we have left after the apostles died off is scripture. But not even scripture makes this claim. It is a man-made Protestant tradition. The Pillar and Foundation of Truth is led by those God has entrusted to ensure his people are not “sheep which have no shepherd”. Jesus “semicha’d” his Apostles, and they continued the practice. This is apostolic succession and was praciticed in the early church and continued until the Protestant revolt. Even many Protestants claim to have apostolic succession and some still practice ordination.
(b.t.w. in 1.5+years of 45 minute sermons, this portion of scripture was never preached. But boy did we go through Paul’s epistles over and over again. Apparently the Holy Spirit only guided my preachers to the New Testament and only Paul’s letters.)
quote:
Now claiming to be so scripturally literate as to state that the pastor "twisted" Scripture? Perhaps if you applied some of that alleged "literacy" and "private interpretation" to the teaching of popes, you might be surprised.
What I found was that he would have to spend a great deal of time telling us what scripture “really meant”. I remember reading in scripture about baptism cleansing from original sin and about receiving the grace of the Holy Spirit. The pastor had to spend a great deal of time preaching around verses such as Acts 2:37f and Acts 22:16 and 1 Pet 3:21 to make sure we properly understood that baptism was not regenerative but was only a symbolic public expression. Similar situation with talking around verses that clearly refute OSAS.
quote:
See....you're doing it again. If you've yet to see an answer, no doubt you haven't looked sufficiently.
Riiiiiight. And is this where you are going to claim again that you actually did post a quote from Augustine where he states that the ECFs who believed in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist were wrong? And that if I search for it hard enough I will find it?
quote:
Of course, Scripture is not speaking of the Roman church since it didn't exist. Besides, that simply means the church is the caretaker of the written Word of God, the source of all truth because God says only of written Scripture that it is inspired. What the church does with Holy Scripture is really the issue.
Okay but whatever church it speaks of, we know from historical evidence that:
- they believed in the real physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist
- they believed in regenerative baptism
- they didn’t reject infants from being baptized
- they held liturgical services which they called a sacrifice and this liturgy always included the celebration of the Eucharist
- they read from and treated the deuterocanonical books as scripture
- they practiced apostolic succession
- they gathered together with leaders from other churches (several days travel away) to resolve doctrinal disputes
- (I got more but this pretty much narrows it down)
So is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Or are you going to tell me it’s the Anglican Church or some variant of Protestantism and that it was "underground" for 1500 years? Or I guess now we have to consider the “Reformed” churches which aren’t really protestant but have reformed something. Or maybe every person who professes Christ is part of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth and truth can vary or be re-defined by local elders or pastors who have broken away from their elders and found some new elders who agree with the pastor’s truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/3/2009 6:29:41 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 342
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
I see no one has addressed the questions I’ve raised regarding the biblical ecclesial model of the Church. TurretinFan is telling all of you who practice congregationalism that your ecclesial model is not in accordance with sacred scripture and I actually agree with him.
I’m a bit surprised that no one has raised an objection to this. I know for certain that there are “bible only” Christians in this forum belonging to a fellowship where the pastors and elders are the final ecclesial authority.
Tfan would like to sweep this under the rug but I’d like to discuss this in more detail because it is very relevant to the need for an earthly leader of the universal church.
Kelman??? KJB???? Ezra???? Ushalk???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/3/2009 9:09:56 PM
|
|
|
JKaplan
Posts: 79
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
I see no one has addressed the questions I’ve raised regarding the biblical ecclesial model of the Church. TurretinFan is telling all of you who practice congregationalism that your ecclesial model is not in accordance with sacred scripture and I actually agree with him.
I’m a bit surprised that no one has raised an objection to this. I know for certain that there are “bible only” Christians in this forum belonging to a fellowship where the pastors and elders are the final ecclesial authority.
Tfan would like to sweep this under the rug but I’d like to discuss this in more detail because it is very relevant to the need for an earthly leader of the universal church.
Kelman??? KJB???? Ezra???? Ushalk???
I'm not suprised at all. I have a feeling there won't be much objection having experienced "bible only" Christianity first hand. Having experience in an "independent" Baptist church, I can tell you it is far from the Acts 15 ecclesial model. The word "independent" in independent Baptist tells the story.
If I disagree with my Pastors personal interpretation of scripture all I can hope for is enough like minded folks to form an alliance with and possibly "vote" the pastor out.
The other and more likely possibilty is I will be forced to seek another congregation that is more in line with the way I personally interpret scripture. Or even better, like the reformers, just start my own "church".
Ironically, we are both operating under the Protestant notion that each Christian is their own authority when it comes to interpreting scripture.
This independent church model is found nowhere in scripture and yet the Catholic church is accused of all kinds of extra biblical practices.
I don't get it.
.
< Message edited by SanJose -- 7/3/2009 9:48:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/3/2009 9:36:27 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
SanJose,
quote:
I don't get it.
We know.
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? - 7/4/2009 12:02:36 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 342
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
SanJose,
quote:
I don't get it.
We know.
KJB
KJB - what do you have to say about TFans accusation that you are not following the ecclesial model set forth in scripture? (see post # 6018)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/4/2009 1:28:31 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
wkirscher,
quote:
KJB - what do you have to say about TFans accusation that you are not following the ecclesial model set forth in scripture? (see post # 6018)
I dont know..........I may have read it but do not remember what he said in the post.
turretinfan has a really good understanding of Scripture so if he says I am not following the ecclesial model set forth in Scripture I would hope he forgives me.
I know the RCC used to curse people for such things........but I dont think turretinfan will.
What do you say about me in relation to the topic?
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? - 7/4/2009 10:10:50 AM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 342
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
wkirscher,
quote:
KJB - what do you have to say about TFans accusation that you are not following the ecclesial model set forth in scripture? (see post # 6018)
I dont know..........I may have read it but do not remember what he said in the post.
turretinfan has a really good understanding of Scripture so if he says I am not following the ecclesial model set forth in Scripture I would hope he forgives me.
I know the RCC used to curse people for such things........but I dont think turretinfan will.
What do you say about me in relation to the topic?
KJB
TFan has stated that "extreme congregationalism" is wrong (according to scripture) but he will not tell us the difference between "extreme" and not-so-extreme.
What I can't quite figure out is why you and others will spend so much time critiquing the model of the Catholic Church but won't put your own under the same scrutiny, especially when someone who you consider has a "really good understanding of scripture" is telling you that yours isn't in accordance with scripture. If you know you are part of a fellowship that isn't following the scriptures, I would think a good bible believing Christian would search the scriptures a bit more deeply. Or you can sweep it under the rug and label it a "non-essential".
|
|
|
|
 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
