|
|
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/4/2009 10:45:43 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
SanJose,
quote:
Hope your having a good day, happy 4th!
Yes, a fine day it is thank you.
Going to a tea party. 
Hope you also have a fine day.
quote:
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.
Each person will be held accountable for his/her own beliefs so why would I give over such authority to a pope that has either wrong or different beliefs?
Traditions are practiced in protestant congregations as well.
In the end....how can you make a person believe what they dont believe?
You cant.
Here is just one example;
RCC councils have declared in the past that if a person did not agree that people still have free-will (if they had the belief that free-will was lost with Adam) he was cursed as anathema and popes agreed with not only the free-will portion of the council.......but the curse part.
Now.....how are you going to get a person to believe that people have free-will if they cannot get their mind to believe it? You cannot get people to agree to what they will not or cannot believe.
Thats like me trying to teach my kids that the moon is cheese but they cant get their minds to believe me so I curse them for it. One of my kids does not grasp math very well compared to all my other kids. His mind as well as theirs do not grasp everything equally, but he is still a Christian and so are they.
I say that the lack of free-will is an essential doctrine that I hold dear in my mind just like RCC councils and popes thought that free-will was an essential doctrine to them.
There is one difference.......I dont condemn Christians with some curse if they do or do not believe in free-will. That is a big point. I dont want to sit with or congregate with people that curse Christians with anathema on such matters and I can asure you that the RCC is already toning this sort of stuff down and they darn well should. You cant just force people to congregate with people that hold different doctrines and you cannot make people agree to doctrines of which they cannot believe.
Do you see the point I am making?
Why should I be required to sit in a congregation where everybody believes the moon is cheese if I cannot believe that it is? It is the same with other doctrines.
Just because a pope tells me bread is flesh it does not mean that bread is flesh and it certainly does not mean my mind can grasp that it is even if it was.
The pope is not the ultimate authority since one day we will all have to answer for the things we did or did not do as individuals.
The only hope for each person when each person stands before God will not be the Pope, Mary, Paul, George, or Ringo.....it will be Jesus Christ.
I might be dead wrong on everything that I disagee with that popes have taught.....but I will have to answer for myself and the pope will not stand in my stead.....therefore I would like to freely retain my own conscience and take my own lickings that are due to me for my mistakes.
When it comes that time and the millions upon millions of my faults all come to light, I will plead guilty as charged and beg for pardon.......Jesus Christ is my only hope.
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 11:08:35 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
wkirscher,
quote:
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.
Oh ok.....I dont know about that. I was not following along very well for a few days. I am sure turretinfan will explain himself.
quote:
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.
Well.....this happens to be a pope thread and popes pertain to the RCC.
I venture to guess there are other threads that discuss other congregations and their teachings but am not sure about that. I suppose you could start a Baptist thread and talk about all things relating to Baptists? Maybe there is already a Baptist thread?
quote:
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".
People should be free to help out a fellowship in regard to understanding Scripture.
People also are known to sweep things under the rug because lets face it.....the majority of people just do not like confrontation.
People should also be free to assemble and congregate with others of like minds that hold certain doctrines to be essentials.
Some things to you are essentials and I cannot expect you to just empty your mind and abandon all the things you hold dear. The same goes for other people.
My friend at work is Pentecostal. He used to tell me about their little demon shows where the congregation would go up front and all sit on the floor while the pastor would touch them and utter things that were not even in plain language. He told me of how they twitched, shook, made noises....etc as demons where being expelled from members of the congregation.
I was asked to go several times and politely refused the invitation because I would not feel comfortable with the show or many of their other doctrines.
You probably could not sit there and nor should you be required to.
It is the same with much of RCC doctrine.
I have been to RCC places where they stick notes on statues of men and parade the statues around and pray to it and I am not comfortable with the doctrines even if popes are.
Popes have done and taught many things that my mind cannot agree with and I do the best to hold not my mind as the standard......but Scripture as the standard to the best of my ability in understanding it.
I am sure I have many faults and lack in much understanding.
My mind happens to be my mind just like your mind happens to be yours and I cannot get mine to agree with many of the things popes have taught as truth.
You know what I mean?
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 12:57:26 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 343
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
Oh ok.....I dont know about that. I was not following along very well for a few days. I am sure turretinfan will explain himself.
I’ve been asking Tfan to explain the difference between “extreme” and not-so-extreme congregationalism but all I get are eye-roll emoticons.
quote:
Well.....this happens to be a pope thread and popes pertain to the RCC.
This thread is about the need for an earthly leader of the universal church. The question has been couched in Catholic terms and sadly, many in this thread have merely used it as a sounding board for their anti-Catholic sentiments.
Should I consider you in the same camp as Tfan? That you are certain the Catholic model is wrong but are unwilling to share with the brothers the proper model that you follow?
quote:
Popes have done and taught many things that my mind cannot agree with and I do the best to hold not my mind as the standard......but Scripture as the standard to the best of my ability in understanding it.
If you are using scripture as the standard, can you explain how your fellowship follows the model in Acts 15? Are you going to change your standard now to align with Tfans? He considers congregationalism as unbiblical. Are you going to accept his authority in these matters? Maybe you too consider “extreme” congregationalism unbiblical. Perhaps you can answer the question Tfan evades:
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)
quote:
I am sure I have many faults and lack in much understanding.
Do you really feel this way? Maybe you should humble yourself then and not speak out against that which you do not understand.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/4/2009 2:51:39 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
wkirscher,
quote:
I’ve been asking Tfan to explain the difference between “extreme” and not-so-extreme congregationalism but all I get are eye-roll emoticons.
And so, you wanted me to explain to you for him?
quote:
This thread is about the need for an earthly leader of the universal church. The question has been couched in Catholic terms and sadly, many in this thread have merely used it as a sounding board for their anti-Catholic sentiments.
Actually, people have shown that we do not need a pope.
Even Catholics on the thread have shown me that.
quote:
Should I consider you in the same camp as Tfan? That you are certain the Catholic model is wrong but are unwilling to share with the brothers the proper model that you follow?
The Catholic model is not a good model no matter what other congregations do or do not do.
quote:
If you are using scripture as the standard, can you explain how your fellowship follows the model in Acts 15?
We already have shown that the RCC does not follow it.
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
And then popes curse Christians when they dont drink it.
Your first pope had to be opposed because he was not acting in line with the truth of the gospel and Paul opposed him without having any RCC council meeting at all. He just opposed him.
Maybe Paul should have fell down at his feet and kissed his ring and then asked Peter for the infallible truth?
quote:
Are you going to change your standard now to align with Tfans? He considers congregationalism as unbiblical. Are you going to accept his authority in these matters? Maybe you too consider “extreme” congregationalism unbiblical. Perhaps you can answer the question Tfan evades:
Perhaps I have no interest in answering whatever you are talking about.
Since the discussion was with turretinfan, I suggest you have a little patience and see if you get an answer.
I have this feeling you have probably already had an answer from him on the matter but I am not sure about that and I am not going back through pages and pages looking for it.
quote:
Maybe you should humble yourself then and not speak out against that which you do not understand.
Why not.....you always speak out on things you dont understand.
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? - 7/5/2009 1:20:18 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 603
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: online
|
Is it possible not to sin anymore?
Do the Popes of the Roman Church encourage this possibilty of not sinning anymore meaning no more need to repent of your sins because your not practicing them. If so, is this for all the children of God or just for some in the Church?
Antinomianism, is this a RC practice for some in the Church?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01564b.htm
PeterD
< Message edited by PeterD -- 7/5/2009 4:24:49 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/6/2009 9:21:19 AM
|
|
|
Irish2
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
KJB,
quote:
The Catholic model is not a good model no matter what other congregations do or do not do.
I think your missing the point. You have issue with the Catholic Model but yet you don't seem sure about your own.
Please answer the question about how your local congregation follows the Acts 15 model.
Wkirscher has been asking this direct question for some time and there hasn't been much response.
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? - 7/6/2009 1:37:02 PM
|
|
|
freeholder
Posts: 109
Joined: 2/15/2008
Status: offline
|
While I may be new to this posting I am hardly new to catholic belief systems since my wife's dear cousin was a novice in the study to become a nun until she quit a few years back, renouncing celibacy.
Which doctrine you may like to explain since that HAS changed over the years. Pope Borgia (Innocent III i believe) had several kids, one of which ran the Vatican army while his daughter was famed for poisoning her way through husbands. Was celebacy in at that time. When exactly did that become a doctrine? Was its treatment consistent? Was the doctrine for it consistent?
Was the Pope's treatment of the knight templar consistent? did his doctrine change when the king of France said it had to? Was thast listening to the guidance of God?
Was burning the early Bible translstors at the stake a policy lead by the Holy Spirit? Mister Wycliffe's ashes led to a lot of people know the scripture and responding to the message. Was it the intent of the Holy Spirit that only the Priesthood should have knowledge of the Word, kept in Latin so English peasants couldn't read it and so learn that only Christ is the head of the church? Or was it fear by the Papacy that there might be what there is today, a refusal to bow to men who merely CLAIM to have a right to speak for God? Did we need a Pope to know we weren't supposed to know?
If that policy was consistent, why is the mass now done in other languages? Isn't Latin sacred any more?
The Pope is merely a man in office? Is this how he is treated? To claim he is merely a man in office and then state that all the doctrines are all perfect and in line with each other is preposterous. It gives the words or men who never saw Christ the weight of those who were appointed the the Holy Spirit to write his word.
Hey, you asked for some examples.
My point was merely that the Holy Spirit is given charge of the church on earth and the Pope assumes that role in his actions which near on blasphemy of that aspect of God. It is the Holy Sp[rit that appoints teacher, for instance. We know if the appointment is true by the fruit the teacher bears. I have no doubt yours are skilled in catholic doctrine. And in arguing around a point, rather than to it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/6/2009 6:46:45 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1175
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
...you gotta love posts like this...
quote:
Was celebacy in at that time. When exactly did that become a doctrine? Was its treatment consistent? Was the doctrine for it consistent? Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. In heeding the words of St. Paul regarding the aesthetics of the religious life, celibacy is a discipline practiced by most entering the holy life serving the Church. Having said that, there are married Priests, Deacons, etc.
quote:
Was burning the early Bible translstors at the stake a policy lead by the Holy Spirit? Mister Wycliffe's ashes led to a lot of people know the scripture and responding to the message. Was it the intent of the Holy Spirit that only the Priesthood should have knowledge of the Word, kept in Latin so English peasants couldn't read it and so learn that only Christ is the head of the church? ...nice mis-direction. Mr. Wycliffe died of "apoplexy" (most likely a stroke) on December 31st, 1384. He was hearing Mass at the time, and had not been ex-communicated from the Church.
The Church's objection to Mr. Wycliffe's translation was not that it put the Gospel in the hands of the common man, but that it put an erroneous, error-filled Gospel in the hands of the common man. I submit this link for your consideration. As the Church was passing on the faith and defending it from error, it objected to the legalistic version of the Gospels offered by Mr. Wycliffe. How come the King James Version (compiled by Erasmus, a Roman Catholic) is so ubiquitously present in the non-Catholic, non-EO faith landscape? Why isn't the Wycliffe Bible the "gold standard"?
quote:
If that policy was consistent, why is the mass now done in other languages? Isn't Latin sacred any more? Latin is a "dead" language, so if you want a Japanese speaker to read the same thing that a French speaker reads, you formally train them both how to read Latin, and now they are reading the same nuances of meaning in the same text. This is why Latin is commonly used in a number of human endeavors with similar requirements, like medicine and law.
quote:
My point was merely that the Holy Spirit is given charge of the church on earth and the Pope assumes that role in his actions which near on blasphemy of that aspect of God. It is the Holy Sp[rit that appoints teacher, for instance. We know if the appointment is true by the fruit the teacher bears. I have no doubt yours are skilled in catholic doctrine. And in arguing around a point, rather than to it. How do we know that Benedict XVI is not being led by the Holy Spirit, and Joyce Meyers is? That is the question, isn't it?
I appeal to authority - and you...? The Catholic Church and EO Church have been around an awfully long time and can trace themselves back to the Apostles and the Church fathers. That's apparently enough authority for me...
Why do you find your own interpretations, or those of your local pastor, or your parents, or your wife, or whoever you follow superior in their authority?
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/6/2009 8:00:25 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Irish2,
I have posted over and over again that the RCC does not follow any Acts 15 model.
Acts 15 actually has a conclusion and the RCC has placed over and over again additional and difficult burdens on people that are turning to God.
When the RCC curses a Christian because they do not believe in free-will, that is an extra burden and certainly one that any so called Christian should not be cursing other Christians with.
The RCC has not used Acts 15 as some model.
8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
Do you see that? People that have turned to Jesus Christ in faith were cursed with anathema by popes and the RCC.
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
I am tired of hearing about some so-called model that even the RCC has not followed. No where are we told in the text that this exact system has to be followed over and over again.
I have pointed out how Christians are to bless, and I have shown how the RCC has cursed.
I have pointed out another model followed by protestants. They stand up and protest when the pope is in the wrong just like Paul did to Peter. Peter did not send his cronies out to persecute Paul like the RCC has done in the past to those that have protested.
Paul asked for no meetings or RCC councils and did not go to Peter for his approval to rebuke him. Paul simply stood up and protested when your first infallible pope was in the wrong.
Maybe if you all followed this model a little bit more the RCC would not be the gigantic convoluted mess it is today.
You have your current pope telling people they should go on a quest to pray in front of some urn that has the arm of some dead guy in it for crying out loud.
quote:
Please answer the question about how your local congregation follows the Acts 15 model.
Well first of all, we believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as others are so we dont certainly go around cursing those that have faith.
The congregation I am in has not held meetings declaring the curse of anathema on those that have faith in Jesus Christ. What is the difference if you have meetings with all the fancy men in your club and at the end of their meeting they have decided to curse Christains with anathema? You can have a million meetings like that and call them model meetings......but we will one day see just how model they were. 
quote:
Wkirscher has been asking this direct question for some time and there hasn't been much response.
There has actually been a lot of response.
The point is.....if people in my congregation meet to solve some sort of problem their solution shoul at least be a Biblical one.......and cursing Christians with anathema is not a good thing to do no matter how fancy the meeting.
So this little charade of model meetings has nothing to do with how messed up some popes have been.
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? - 7/7/2009 8:02:28 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SanJose quote:
You sound confused, let's see if we can remedy that. I appreciate your concern, but no confusion here. I'd rather cautiously presume confusion over intentional misrepresentation. Confusion can be my fault for not being clear ...
quote:
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. "Double-standard" implies that I tolerate something in one camp that I oppose in the other, no? If so, how on earth is this a double-standard?
quote:
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? a) "Practicing infallibility" is just a rhetorical flourish. They are not practicing infallibility - that would require them to be infallible. They are just practicing cantankerousness.
b) And yes, being stubborn is different from claiming to be infallible. That should be readily apparent.
quote:
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. No, it wasn't based on the principle that there is or should be no church discipline. You have misunderstood the Reformation principle of sola scriptura as though it some how removed the need for elders. It was not understood that way by the Reformers or the earlier fathers, just as it is not understood that way by most churches that practice sola scriptura today.
quote:
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. The fact that the Reformers broke fellowship with Rome was not something they undertook lightly. Your illogical conclusion that if they did it and justified it then it must always be justified simply does not follow. They had powerful reasons to break fellowship with Rome, but there are plenty of knaves who think they have a reason, simply because they think their opinion is equal to that of their pastor.
quote:
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"? Not all of them are. Being "Reformed" at a minimum means holding to the five "solas." That excludes most Lutherans and many "non-denominational" folks. A more strict definition of "Reformed" would draw the circle a bit tighter, but let's continue:
quote:
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? a) To the extent that they preach the gospel of Christ, they are part of the true catholic (universal) church.
b) Yes, holding the five points of Calvinism is not an essential of the faith.
c) Yes, one can have confused views about the role of baptism without necessarily being lost.
d) Yes, one may be confused about God's intent to save to the uttermost.
e) Yes, Christ intended to save people despite their inaccurate theology.
f) Yes, sincere but fallible people striving for the truth can sometimes lead to bitter divisions.
quote:
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. No, the RC faith is based on the say-so of the RC church. You don't accept what the fathers teach unless it is what your church teaches - just as you don't accept what the Bible teaches unless it is what your church teaches. You pay homage to Scripture and tradition, but in practice you accept neither, refusing to let them show you the errors of your magisterium.
quote:
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. a) Actually, why does anyone have to determine what is necessary? We can know that all the necessary teachings are found in Scripture without knowing precisely which teachings are necessary and which are non-essential.
b) Let me provide you an example that proves this. Suppose that you find a man who is sick and you give him an apple, and the man recovers. You do the same to several men who are similarly sick. After a while you realize that there is something in the apple that cures them. Do you have to know what it is? Do you have to be able to isolate the necessary curative elements in order to cure people? Of course not. It is enough to know that the apple contains that necessary cure.
c) Finally, let's connect the dots. Scripture itself says that it is able to make a person wise unto salvation. That is enough to show that Scripture is able clearly to teach the things that are necessary for salvation, even if we cannot tell precisely what those things are: i.e. even if we cannot definitively tell the essential elements from the non-essential elements. We can accept that Scripture has the remedy, even if we don't play pharmacist and try to figure out the essential active ingredients of Scripture.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 8:12:20 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
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. Hopefully you see the difference between his arguments and my arguments.
quote:
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. I think you might want to read up on Jerome on this. You won't find Jerome accepting the deuterocanonical books as canonical even despite the influence of others less scholarly than himself.
quote:
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. The papacy is a development, as many of your own Roman Catholic scholars admit. As such, it was not handed down by Christ and his apostles as a model. In fact, whether it was even handed down in some "seed" form (as these historians are forced to claim) is open to serious doubt.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 8:18:20 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet 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." Yes, those are Dave's personal attacks directed at me. That does not correspond with your original description, however.
quote:
For example your analysis and comments weaken your own position on this topic Then focus on them, not on importing personal attacks by folks like Armstrong.
quote:
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.... That's not close to what I said. And no - I don't make this topic personally about me.
quote:
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?! What do you mean by "upholding church teachings"? Are you asking for what I believe in general? See the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which are church teachings that have been properly derived from Scripture. This, however, is not the place to debate the WCF. In fact, I'm curious: how does what church teachings I uphold have anything to do with the topic?
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 8:20:58 AM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wkirscher
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". a) Yes, it is good to be charitable in non-essentials; but
b) We do also critique the competing ecclesiastical models: just not here, in a thread specifically about the papacy.
I'm not sure what is so confusing about this concept of having a limited scope to a discussion thread.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 11:12:46 AM
|
|
|
JKaplan
Posts: 79
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
"Double-standard" implies that I tolerate something in one camp that I oppose in the other, no? If so, how on earth is this a double-standard?
O.K. If you weren't using a double standard, then I appologize. You claimed the Catholic Church was steeped in petrified traditions and you seem to be suggesting the protestant world is as well. Just to be fair, the RCC church is very public and easy to study. What are some of the petrified traditions in your local congregation or major denomination so the Catholic's on this forum can study them?
quote:
a) "Practicing infallibility" is just a rhetorical flourish. They are not practicing infallibility - that would require them to be infallible. They are just practicing cantankerousness.
b) And yes, being stubborn is different from claiming to be infallible. That should be readily apparent.
Splitting hairs here at best. Whatever you end up labeling it, it ends up being the same thing.
quote:
No, it wasn't based on the principle that there is or should be no church discipline. You have misunderstood the Reformation principle of sola scriptura as though it some how removed the need for elders. It was not understood that way by the Reformers or the earlier fathers, just as it is not understood that way by most churches that practice sola scriptura today.
That's the point. No church practices true sola scriptura. Whatever is not in scripture is made up or the preference of the individual pastor or "elders" of the group. That's where authority comes in. Things are determined "neccesary" or "unneccessary" by the traditions of men.
quote:
The fact that the Reformers broke fellowship with Rome was not something they undertook lightly. Your illogical conclusion that if they did it and justified it then it must always be justified simply does not follow. They had powerful reasons to break fellowship with Rome, but there are plenty of knaves who think they have a reason, simply because they think their opinion is equal to that of their pastor.
Once it's done it cannot be undone. Who gets to determine what issues are serious enough to split from a church? It comes down to individual opinion and once you go down that path there is no turning back.
quote:
a) To the extent that they preach the gospel of Christ, they are part of the true catholic (universal) church.
b) Yes, holding the five points of Calvinism is not an essential of the faith.
c) Yes, one can have confused views about the role of baptism without necessarily being lost.
d) Yes, one may be confused about God's intent to save to the uttermost.
e) Yes, Christ intended to save people despite their inaccurate theology.
f) Yes, sincere but fallible people striving for the truth can sometimes lead to bitter divisio
Seems by your own criteria the RCC is just fine.
quote:
No, the RC faith is based on the say-so of the RC church. You don't accept what the fathers teach unless it is what your church teaches - just as you don't accept what the Bible teaches unless it is what your church teaches. You pay homage to Scripture and tradition, but in practice you accept neither, refusing to let them show you the errors of your magisterium.
This is just anti-catholic rhetoric. I'm suprised you dabble in such non-sense.
quote:
a) Actually, why does anyone have to determine what is necessary? We can know that all the necessary teachings are found in Scripture without knowing precisely which teachings are necessary and which are non-essential.
b) Let me provide you an example that proves this. Suppose that you find a man who is sick and you give him an apple, and the man recovers. You do the same to several men who are similarly sick. After a while you realize that there is something in the apple that cures them. Do you have to know what it is? Do you have to be able to isolate the necessary curative elements in order to cure people? Of course not. It is enough to know that the apple contains that necessary cure.
c) Finally, let's connect the dots. Scripture itself says that it is able to make a person wise unto salvation. That is enough to show that Scripture is able clearly to teach the things that are necessary for salvation, even if we cannot tell precisely what those things are: i.e. even if we cannot definitively tell the essential elements from the non-essential elements. We can accept that Scripture has the remedy, even if we don't play pharmacist and try to figure out the essential active ingredients of Scripture.
Although I applaud the effort with the anology, the problem you have is that Jesus promised his followers the Holy Spirit would guide them to "all" truth.
Why the guessing game when it comes to essential and non-essential doctrines?
Jesus left his apostles with a shepard guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the only way that makes any sense. That is why the CC as survived for 2000 years.
.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 12:34:41 PM
|
|
|
SamsonUSA
Posts: 2084
Joined: 10/5/2008
From: Laguna Beach. Presently an Arizona desert dweller
Status: offline
|
quote:
Jesus left his apostles with a shepard guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the only way that makes any sense. That is why the CC as survived for 2000 years.
The problem with this analogy is when any sects " shepard " gives edicts and supports teachings and doctrines of men which are contrary and in opposition to the word of God we are able to discern that which is leading him is not the Holy Spirit of truth.
_____________________________
If you can't be thankful for what you receive, be thankful for what you escape.
We are the objects of God's grace. Let Him be the object of our gratitude.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 1:20:14 PM
|
|
|
freeholder
Posts: 109
Joined: 2/15/2008
Status: offline
|
1) if my previous post seemed insensitive, sorry. I was a bit indignant at the response of being the "new" guy. But it raises a good point on protocols
a) there are 6000+ posts here making it unlikely anyone will read all of them unless they are embroiled in a debate. (Someone merely passing with an aside about the role of the Holy Spirit would likely not expect to be chastised for having a comment, but then this IS Crosswalk.)
b) this is a public place which allows public postings at any time by anyone. if you wish that changed, you need to talk to someone in charge instead of complaining about someone popping in "late." (One might say that this point was answered in post # such and such and be gracious in acknowledging a new voice. The new voice might also scan the various thousands of posts knowing there will always be someone trying to run the forum for their point of view . )
c) I was more concerned with the John MacArthur postings than this one since that matters more to the Protestant sections of Christianity than the Pope.
Which brings me to my response to the listed question. Next Post.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 1:24:52 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1175
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
The problem with this analogy is when any sects " shepard " gives edicts and supports teachings and doctrines of men which are contrary and in opposition to the word of God... ...and just who gets decide that an edict or teaching is contrary and opposition to the Word of God...? Best be someone well versed and well prepared by experience, education and reflection to discern the proper edicts and teachings and doctrines that ARE lock-step with God.
That's the point of this thread. You say you get to decide this. I say you don't - you're not qualified.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 1:26:05 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1175
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
But it raises a good point on protocols ...I apologize as well. I just get tired of dispelling the same myths every 2 months or so...
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 2:08:25 PM
|
|
|
freeholder
Posts: 109
Joined: 2/15/2008
Status: offline
|
Firs, is the Pope needed?
On the face of it, a simple response: the expansion and success of the Protestant church in bringing people to Christ saves an obvious , "NO!" The various divisions of protestantism might seem to ask for a strong single voice, but the various divisions that exist in the Catholic church today merely illustrate that one man is NOT a strong presence in an age of global communication and diversity. Protestant success answers the question best.
But let's assume there is no Protestant church, is there a BIBLICAL reason for the Pope to exist . The stated reason is Matthew 16:17-19. This incident appears in three of the gospels, but it is only detailed in Matt. so we need to speak to this one verse upon which the entire doctrine of the papacy is based. (Passage of apostlic offices becomes moot if there is no reason for a Papacy to begin with) I'm sure this has been extensively discussed since it's the ONLY reason for the suggestion of Peter's supremacy among apostles. So consider this a "summation" of the arguments and someone among you can sum up the counters.
v.17: Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man but by my Father in heaven.
Note there is nothing special about the realization except that God has shown it to Peter. It's not HIS.
v.18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not overcome it.
What was it that Peter said? "You are the Christ, the son of the living God."
Scofield: "Peter means rock. In the greek, there is a play upon words in this statement: "You are Peter (petros,a stone) and on THIS rock (petra, MASSIVE rock) I will build my church." It is on Christ himself, the massive Rock (who Peter was recognizing with his statement,) that the church is built.
But does any commentator in the Bible itself take this view: "As you come to him, the Living Stone-rejected by men but chosen by God, and precious to Him-you also, like liiving stone, are being built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood (note:soeaking to ALL Christians here) offering Spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ...Now, to you who believe this stone is precious, But to those who do not believe, 'The Stone the builders rejected has become the capstone' and 'the stone that causes men to stumble and a stone that makes them fall.' They stumble because they disobey the message-which is also what they were destined for. BUT YOU ARE A CHOSEN PEOPLE, A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE BELONGING TO GOD, THAT YOU MAY DECLARE THE PRAISES OF HIM WHO CALLED YOU OUT OF DARKNESS INTO HIS WONDERFUL LIFE."
I capped the last part simply because it's among the most stirring in Scripture. Oh, and it's PETER (1 Peter 2:4-9) Telling us we are all priests and royal at that. Telling us we are all small stones like him. Peter, apparently, didn't see himself as the leader of the Church, but as A leader of the church.
As for the keys of binding and loosing, see this scene, Jesus has just gotten done telling Peter he's the small rock with a grand revelation, then looks up at the rest of the apostles and says "I will give you the keys to the kigdom of heaven..." (v.19)
Matt 18:18:(Note: speaking to ALL the disciples "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heave and whatever you loose..." Same statement made to ALL.
It was Peter who opened the door to Christianity for the Jews in Acts2 and for gentiles in Acts 10. He held the keys that opened everything, but there is no assumption of Peter possessing any other authority (Acts 15:7-11) James clearly pesides over the council. Peter never clkaims any more for himself but being an apostle by gift of God (not inheritance!) (1 Peter 1:1) and an elder of the church (1 Peter 5:1)
No Biblical reason for a special office given to Peter. No actual reason because of the
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 2:09:28 PM
|
|
|
freeholder
Posts: 109
Joined: 2/15/2008
Status: offline
|
protestant church. Ever hit the wrong button.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 5:11:40 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1175
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Scofield: "Peter means rock. In the greek, there is a play upon words in this statement: "You are Peter (petros,a stone) and on THIS rock (petra, MASSIVE rock) I will build my church." It is on Christ himself, the massive Rock (who Peter was recognizing with his statement,) that the church is built. ...I think this type of tortured rendering of the Greek in these verses has been thoroughly debunked by many Biblical scholars, including many Protestant ones.
quote:
As for the keys of binding and loosing, see this scene, Jesus has just gotten done telling Peter he's the small rock with a grand revelation, then looks up at the rest of the apostles and says "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven..." (v.19) ...if the binding and loosing is not speaking of a particular authority, and if that authority does not reside in the institution of Church, then a veritable quagmire of binding and loosing surely follows, does it not? Why was the binding and loosing given only to the disciples? Were the 3,000 converts on the day of Pentecost also given this authority by virtue of their conversion? Why doesn't Scripture say so, then? At Pentecost, were there now 3,000 disciples?
quote:
Peter, apparently, didn't see himself as the leader of the Church, but as A leader of the church. He was THE leader of A Church - Namely the Roman Catholic Church (and possibly the EO Church in terms of lineage and legacy). Unfortunately for you, this is the one that has survived and the one you have to deal with in threads like these, if you so choose...
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 5:31:59 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes, those are Dave's personal attacks directed at me. That does not correspond with your original description, however.
Oh please. You got caught trying to deny any involvement with Dave.
quote:
That's not close to what I said. And no - I don't make this topic personally about me.
This is a normal tactic. You talk about our pastor until your face is blue, but as soon as we try to see where your coming from that's off topic. That is because in most cases people are their own mini-popes, ready to judge and reject any "pastor". Is that biblical? Was Paul a pastor? Where in the bible is it shown one can reject and or correct his teaching!?
quote:
What do you mean by "upholding church teachings"?
Isn't it obvious? How can you judge personal interpretations or opinion? Unless everyone agrees to the WCF then you are just spinning in circles...right? Who it the final authority? Oh yes, the bible, or at least my interpretation of what the bible means....
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/7/2009 8:07:15 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3711
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Doghouse,
quote:
That's the point of this thread. You say you get to decide this. I say you don't - you're not qualified.
Oh yeah.....well I say you are not qualified to say that he is not qualified......LOL
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? - 7/7/2009 8:51:05 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SanJose quote:
"Double-standard" implies that I tolerate something in one camp that I oppose in the other, no? If so, how on earth is this a double-standard? O.K. If you weren't using a double standard, then I appologize. You claimed the Catholic Church was steeped in petrified traditions and you seem to be suggesting the protestant world is as well. Just to be fair, the RCC church is very public and easy to study. What are some of the petrified traditions in your local congregation or major denomination so the Catholic's on this forum can study them? I think you are missing the point. The RCC system is inherently prone toward this problem, and - along the way - has picked up a lot of baggage. Reformation and revival of virtually any "Protestant" church are systemically possible (despite a degree of petrification of some human traditions), but that's not the case for the Roman Catholic church. She cannot admit she was wrong. To do so would be to make the RCC something it is not. That's not the case for just about any other church.
quote:
quote:
a) "Practicing infallibility" is just a rhetorical flourish. They are not practicing infallibility - that would require them to be infallible. They are just practicing cantankerousness.
b) And yes, being stubborn is different from claiming to be infallible. That should be readily apparent. Splitting hairs here at best. Whatever you end up labeling it, it ends up being the same thing. No it doesn't. Are you saying that the pope's claim to infallibility is just stubbornness? Surely not. So it's not just splitting hairs.
quote:
quote:
No, it wasn't based on the principle that there is or should be no church discipline. You have misunderstood the Reformation principle of sola scriptura as though it some how removed the need for elders. It was not understood that way by the Reformers or the earlier fathers, just as it is not understood that way by most churches that practice sola scriptura today. That's the point. No church practices true sola scriptura. Whatever is not in scripture is made up or the preference of the individual pastor or "elders" of the group. That's where authority comes in. Things are determined "neccesary" or "unneccessary" by the traditions of men. Plenty of churches practice sola scripture. Sola scriptura doesn't mean that elders have no authority - but it seems that this distinction is lost on you. They have to have either absolute authority equal to the Bible (as per the RCC model) or no authority. I'm baffled why you don't accept a third option, the actual practice of numerous Sola Scriptura churches throughout the centuries.
quote:
quote:
The fact that the Reformers broke fellowship with Rome was not something they undertook lightly. Your illogical conclusion that if they did it and justified it then it must always be justified simply does not follow. They had powerful reasons to break fellowship with Rome, but there are plenty of knaves who think they have a reason, simply because they think their opinion is equal to that of their pastor. Once it's done it cannot be undone. Who gets to determine what issues are serious enough to split from a church? It comes down to individual opinion and once you go down that path there is no turning back. Everyone who has ever "converted" to the Roman Catholic church did so on the basis of individual opinion. If individual opinion is inherently untrustworthy, there is a serious problem. So, which is it? Can one trust individual opinion or not?
quote:
quote:
a) To the extent that they preach the gospel of Christ, they are part of the true catholic (universal) church.
b) Yes, holding the five points of Calvinism is not an essential of the faith.
c) Yes, one can have confused views about the role of baptism without necessarily being lost.
d) Yes, one may be confused about God's intent to save to the uttermost.
e) Yes, Christ intended to save people despite their inaccurate theology.
f) Yes, sincere but fallible people striving for the truth can sometimes lead to bitter divisio Seems by your own criteria the RCC is just fine. Just because someone can be saved and be a part of a very corrupt church doesn't mean that very corrupt church is "just fine." And since Rome's gospel is a different gospel than that which we preach, folks who are saved out of the RCC are saved despite its teachings, not by its teachings. So, no - the RCC is not "just fine" despite it not being a barrier to the salvation of anyone who trust in Christ alone for salvation (as numerous RCC adherents have alleged to me that they do).
quote:
quote:
No, the RC faith is based on the say-so of the RC church. You don't accept what the fathers teach unless it is what your church teaches - just as you don't accept what the Bible teaches unless it is what your church teaches. You pay homage to Scripture and tradition, but in practice you accept neither, refusing to let them show you the errors of your magisterium. This is just anti-catholic rhetoric. I'm suprised you dabble in such non-sense. Actually, that's about all the answer folks from your church can give. They can call names and make things personal, but they cannot answer the arguments. They cannot ultimately face the fact that the RCC is simply accepting what appears to your eyes to be "white" as "black" if the RCC says it is "black." They call it names like "anti-catholic rhetoric" but that is no excuse for avoiding the issues. In fact, my argument is essentially the same argument used by one of the earliest church fathers. But, I know, you probably think he's a big "anti-catholic" too. Aren't those pejorative labels handy?
quote:
quote:
a) Actually, why does anyone have to determine what is necessary? We can know that all the necessary teachings are found in Scripture without knowing precisely which teachings are necessary and which are non-essential.
b) Let me provide you an example that proves this. Suppose that you find a man who is sick and you give him an apple, and the man recovers. You do the same to several men who are similarly sick. After a while you realize that there is something in the apple that cures them. Do you have to know what it is? Do you have to be able to isolate the necessary curative elements in order to cure people? Of course not. It is enough to know that the apple contains that necessary cure.
c) Finally, let's connect the dots. Scripture itself says that it is able to make a person wise unto salvation. That is enough to show that Scripture is able clearly to teach the things that are necessary for salvation, even if we cannot tell precisely what those things are: i.e. even if we cannot definitively tell the essential elements from the non-essential elements. We can accept that Scripture has the remedy, even if we don't play pharmacist and try to figure out the essential active ingredients of Scripture. Although I applaud the effort with the anology, the problem you have is that Jesus promised his followers the Holy Spirit would guide them to "all" truth. That's no problem for me, unless you think that just because someone is not in your church they are not a followers of Jesus or lack the Holy Spirit. Is that your position?
quote:
Why the guessing game when it comes to essential and non-essential doctrines? Why should they have to be identified? But if so:
a) Has the RCC identified precisely which doctrines are essential and which are not?
b) When did they do so, and is this is a fixed quantity, or is it subject to change the next time the pope decides to give a new ex cathedra proclamation?
quote:
Jesus left his apostles with a shepard guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the only way that makes any sense. That is why the CC as survived for 2000 years. Actually, Jesus left us with the Holy Spirit and the Apostles left us with more Scripture. That's the way it makes sense, as it has to Christians all over the world for nearly 2000 years.
-TurretinFan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/8/2009 3:24:07 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5092
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irish2
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? Obviously Jerome didn't, at least not as it pertained to the Apocrypha. The pope said it was Scripture, Jerome said it wasn't.
So, nope, Jerome didn't accept the authority of the pope to know what he was talking about when it came to Scripture.
Hmm, seems that's something a pope ought to know about if he was legitimate.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
