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

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine



Message

Qtman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 9:53:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doghouse

quote:

Did we invent the titles of "Chief Shepherd" for your pope, or did you?

This Christmas, do I get a homily from Jesus about the prliferation of arms in the Middle East, or do I get that from the Pope, if I watch the Christmas Mass at the Vatican...?

Does the Baptist Chruch down the street get their sermon the following Sunday from Jesus appearing at the pulpit? Or, is there a minister standing there to deliver it?

Does the minister say the type of things he thinks Jesus might about where we are at today? Does he point the congregants in the direction of God, rather than some other direction? Is he the primary person steering the herd, or does he answer to some person who has authority over him in liturgical and ecclesiastical matters?

If he is the primary authoirty over that flock, then he is "Chief Shepherd", working for Jesus, who at this time is choosing not to be here among us in a human body. If he reports to an elder board or something, then perhaps they are "Chief SHepherd".

The Pope is "Chief Shepherd" for a billion Catholics who would love Jesus to deliver that Christmas Mass homily, but realize that Jesus has chosen another way to lead us, and has deputized someone to do that for Catholics.


Doghouse I do not have a problem with this. I have said all along that the Pope is to the Roman Catholic Church what the Head of say the Methodist Church is to the Methodist. The paralell also extends to the Bishops and the local Priest. Yes they all should be telling their members what Jesus wants them to hear. Yes they are all supposed to be leading the flock. Yes in this sense they are all shepards. I do not know about the title Chief Shepard though. I believe Jesus Himself is the Chief Shepard. I do believe however, that God has called men to be preachers and pastors to physically lead the flock as you say until Jesus' return.

The only problem I have is on one side we have people saying that the entire world has to submit to the Pope and agree with all RCC doctrine. I even had one tell me that my pastor was not really a pastor but just a lay leader. This is just plain false. BTW I do not recall you ever saying anything like that.

Then on the other side we have people saying the catholics area false religion and are not Christians. I do not believe that either.

There is plenty of historical evidence to give question as to the origin of the RCC but it is as debatable as the history taught by the RCC. I can find and have posted a few paralells between the RCC as we know it today and several pagan religions. This in and of itself does not make the RCC pagan. In fact many of the religious holidays we all celibrate today are in fact Christianized pagan holidays. Christmas and Easter come to mind quickly.

As I said I have no problem with the RCC. My problem is with those like particius79 who insist we all must be catholic in order to receive salvation. I am also aware of several Protestant denominations that will argue the same thing about their denomination. So the RCC does not have a corner on the market of zealots.[:D]



teacher1982 -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 10:52:05 AM)

Why do we need a Pope? WE DON'T!

There is only ONE advocate with the Father and that is Jesus. There is only ONE who can forgive us our sins and that is Jesus. The Pope has absolutely no power to forgive sins. No where are we commanded in the Bible to go into a closet and confess our sins to a man who claims to be able to forgive them or tell us to prayer so many particular prayers to receive forgiveness. Counting beads is only that - counting beads.

I am open to proof from scriptures out of the Word of God to prove that we need a Pope.



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 11:40:10 AM)

quote:

I have some posts in here that took over an hour to develop, only to be skipped over, ignored, or poo-pooed with "well, you're wrong...Scripture says..."


Doghouse - I find the same frustrations. Well reaseoned scriptural arguments supported by 2000 years of church history are usually ignored. Writings of the great fathers and martyrs of the early church that support these arguments are poo-pooed because they are "foolish" because they don't agree with Protestant man-made tradition. Contradicitions in Protestant doctrine are swept under the rug or deemed "not essential for my personal salvation", while proclaiming unity in the same breath. If there is a response to our posts, it's usually of this variety: "Oh yeah? Well at least ...." followed by some unsubstantiated quote from an anti-Catholic website or something clearly taken out of context.

Courage brother! There are other's reading these posts with an open mind. I've actually had a couple folks PM me for more information.



WildByNature -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 11:52:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: teacher1982
Why do we need a Pope? WE DON'T!

AMEN!!!

quote:

There is only ONE advocate with the Father and that is Jesus. There is only ONE who can forgive us our sins and that is Jesus. The Pope has absolutely no power to forgive sins. No where are we commanded in the Bible to go into a closet and confess our sins to a man who claims to be able to forgive them or tell us to prayer so many particular prayers to receive forgiveness. Counting beads is only that - counting beads.

True story. I have a friend who converted from RC but whose nephew is going to be entering the priesthood. The nephew was asked why Catholics had to confess their sins to a priest and he answered, "You don't think you can just pray to God and He'll forgive your sins, do you?!" [sm=icon_smile_faint.gif]

quote:

I am open to proof from scriptures out of the Word of God to prove that we need a Pope.

I don't know how many Catholic threads you've posted in, but their definition of the "Word of God" is not the same as ours. Scriptures are the last thing they'll offer as proof, and that only if their proof-texts can be lined up with their "oral traditions".



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 12:41:53 PM)

quote:

Oh, I see that you have already inadequately addressed Sam's apt observation of the ridiculousness of Roman succession.
Why do you call it “Roman succession”? If this were a teaching of only the Roman Catholic Church, then this would have some merit. However, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, and Anglican churches all know this as Apostolic Succession. In fact, even the sola-scriptura Lutherans believe in it. Your mislabeling it as “the ridiculousness of Roman succession” is rather telling.

quote:

Your assessment would be all good and well, except that there there has been a plethora of Christian churches started by real Christians who don't fit the Roman mold.
This all depends on what you mean by “churches”. If you simply mean an assembly of believers, then I can agree with you. If you mean assemblies of believers that follow the biblical model of government then I disagree. If you can show me how the leaders of your congregation gather together with leaders of other congregations to settle doctrinal disputes, and if you can show me that your leaders are ordained by the biblical model of imposition of hands, then I can begin to agree with you. Your definition of “church” has to hold up to scripture. And from what I’ve experienced in “bible only” churches, it doesn’t. Two of these “assemblies of believers” that I’ve been a member of actually started because of doctrinal disputes with another church. No doctrinal resolution, only division. The pastor of one quit and became a teacher because his “elders” acted independently of any other entity and literally drove the pastor out. The “church” disintegrated 6 months later.

quote:

Even in the NT, Philip is drawn by the Holy Spirit to the desert where he encounters the Ethiopian eunuch who was coming to Jerusalem to worship the true God. What happens? Philip explains the messianic prophecies of Isaiah, and then Christ as presented in the OT Scripture, (umm, the WRITTEN WORD *cough*sola scriptura*cough*) to the eunuch, baptized him, and got teleported away by God.

Now, what happened to the Ethiopian eunuch? Answer: he had enough understanding of Jesus and His gospel from Scripture to go and start the church in Ethiopia.... WITHOUT the need of stupid magical powers passed on by unbiblical Popes or bishops and their laughable magical rituals.

Tell me, was Philip a Pope? Because if he wasn't, then your silly ideas fail.

Just more evidence that Scripture alone is the highest authority.

I love the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch!!! This was one of the many scriptures that God used to call me into the Catholic Church!!! The poor Ethiopian Eunuch (EE for short) was sitting there trying to figure out the Messianic Prophecies. He just couldn’t do it using sola-scriptura. Thank the Good Lord for giving us the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Along comes Philip and he preaches the Good News. It’s a good thing the EE received God’s Grace through the Church and that he didn’t have to rely on his own personal interpretation of scripture! In fact the same could be said for many of the earliest Christians. About 90% of them couldn’t read. Can you imagine how many would have been lost if salvation required them to learn to read, to either transcribe or purchase costly copies of scripture, and then personally figure out what they mean? So now the EE knows of Jesus Christ. Not through sola-scriptura but through the witness and testimony of Philip.

Philip was living out the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, telling them baptism is symbolic and not necessary for salvation. The Holy Spirit will inspire you to write a small sampling of what I’ve been teaching you for three years and this will be the sole authority – forget about all that bind and loose and imposition of hands stuff, the Western world won’t get it – they don’t like authority. When you are finished writing, hand them out to those who can read and make as many copies as you possibly can. If they can read and can properly interpret the scriptures on their own, they shall have truth. And lo, I will be with them from now until the death of John and then again from the start of the Reformation until the close of the age”

Sorry, I still haven’t purged all of what my “bible only” pastor’s preached to me. Here is what I meant to write:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Philip didn’t get whisked away until he baptized the EE. Sounds like a pretty important work of the Holy Spirit for something “bible only” Baptists teach is only symbolic.

Sorry for the digression …

quote:

Now, what happened to the Ethiopian eunuch? Answer: he had enough understanding of Jesus and His gospel from Scripture to go and start the church in Ethiopia....
ManimalX – can you please tell me where it says the EE went off and started the Church in Ethiopia? I’m pretty sure this is an excellent example of eisegesis because I’m not finding any such text.

No Philip was not a Pope. He was a deacon. Every single one of us is called to preach the Good News. Not every single one of us is called to be leaders of a congregation, or a presbytery, or a diocese, or a universal church. If you read in Act 6, you will see that Philip was commissioned through prayer and imposition of hands (Acts 6:6). You call it a “laughable magic ritual”; the Apostles, the Reformed Church, and the CC believe otherwise.

Prior to the encounter with the EE, Philip was preaching and baptizing throughout Samaria. Acts 8:14-18 describes how the Apostles Peter and John subsequently went to Samaria to do that “laughable magic ritual”. Simon even saw how “the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles hands”. Again, what you describe as “stupid magical powers”, scripture describes as a gift of the Holy Spirit. And you accuse Catholics of having no reverence for God’s Word!
If we want to be consistent with scripture and with the writings of the early church, we can expect that the Church in Ethiopia had the same authoritative visit as the Church in Samaria. So, despite your eisegesis, the account of the Ethiopian Eunuch does absolutely nothing to support your claim. Here are a couple links to Ethiopian Christian history that claim Matthew visited them:
http://www.kidusmichael.com/EthiopianChristianity.htm
http://www.ninesaintsethiopianorthodoxmonastery.org/id14.html

quote:

WITHOUT the need of stupid magical powers passed on by unbiblical Popes or bishops and their laughable magical rituals.
Ouch!!!! Kelman – I guess ManimalX believes that our biblical understanding of ordination through the imposition of hands are “stupid magical powers” and “laughable magic rituals”!



Doghouse -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 12:57:43 PM)

quote:

There is plenty of historical evidence to give question as to the origin of the RCC but it is as debatable as the history taught by the RCC.

It surprises me that no one has noted that the Catholics and EO might have the upper hand here, because much of what we know about history through the dark ages would have been lost, had it not been for the monks scribing away from older manuscripts to preserve some of what had been written down in the early parts of the first millennium. The Church scribed many documents - Scriptural and otherwise, to preserve and guard faith and pass it on.

Its not entirely inconceivable that there may be some editorial buried in some of that - I'll throw that bone into the argument for the other side.

quote:

So the RCC does not have a corner on the market of zealots.


Amen to that...

I think the "correct' answer in regard to salvation is that no human can judge. God has reserved that ability and action for Himself, and has chosen to create us without this vision and sense.

I recognize within my observations of people, that we can all imagine a perfectly pure and unadulterated Christian faith, passed from the words and example of Jesus, to the hearts of the Apostles. That's the faith we'd all like to identify and follow - whatever that is.

This website is reflective of just how far we've all been able to diverge into "shades of grey" relative to one another since Jesus walked among us. He'll be back someday to straighten everyone out, and some are going to be in for a shock - one way or another, whichever side the chips land on.

I don't like the divergence - I wish we could all just hold hands and get back on the same page.

That seems to be difficult...given what I read and observe here. The fastest growing religions on the planet are Hindu and Muslim. Maybe if we Christians start getting the screws put to us by these bigger bodies of faith, we will finally sober up and figure out how to come together over our common desire and hope of a relationship with God through Jesus, assisted by the Holy Spirit, instead finding ways and forums to highlight the differences between us.

The biggest thread on this website is the Armenians and Calvinists duking it out ad infinitum. The biggest thread on this site ought to be "How to win over our Muslim and Hindu neighbors to a relationship with Jesus".



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 1:04:04 PM)

quote:

I don't know how many Catholic threads you've posted in, but their definition of the "Word of God" is not the same as ours. Scriptures are the last thing they'll offer as proof, and that only if their proof-texts can be lined up with their "oral traditions".


WildByNature – welcome to the thread! Hang out with us for a while.

As for myself, it was the Bible that drew me into the Catholic Church. All I had to do was start reading ALL of it and not just my pastor’s favorite verses from Paul’s letters. I also had to question him when he told us what scripture “really means”. Once I started questioning his personal interpretation of scripture, my eyes were opened to the disunity in Protestant teachings, to all of it’s strife and divisions, and to many of the ecclesial practices in scripture that are just flat out ignored by “bible only” churches.

Of particular concern was their “symbolic only” and “believers only” baptism which is pretty easy to refute using scripture. I knew this contradicted what others, such as the bible-based Reformed Church, believe. Did a little research to find out what the early church believed. Guess what???? Not one single solitary shred of evidence to support the “symbolic only” “believers only” baptism. This wasn’t invented until after the start of the Reformation and is only believed by a small subset of Protestants. Same with the Lord’s Supper. Symbolic only? Nope – not until after the Reformation and believed only by a small subset of Protestants. Congregational form of church government? Nope – not until after the Reformation and only by a small subset of Protestants.

Anyhow, I think if you stick around, you will see that all of our arguments are based on scripture. The difference you may notice (or maybe not), is that our doctrines will be supported by writings from the early church.

Again, welcome!



Qtman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 3:00:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond

rawr.ben,

quote:

No one has denied that God gives us leaders, teachers, etc. Just, some of deny the highly exalted teacher that doesn't have to adhere to Biblical standards, and can steal God's titles.

So, instead of just taking that opening line of Kelman's post and making a ran, perhaps you should address the actual beef of it.


Doghouse does not usually address the actual beef. [;)]

I never got a response on the post that I gave that provided actual links to the Vatican and clearly claimed that popes are as "sweet Christ on earth".

KJB


Not that they need defending but I want to jump in right here and defend both doghouse and Catholicandloveit. Both of these people have consistently, as far as I can tell, posted what they believe and why. I do not believe either of them has exhibited the attitude of some of the Catholics and even some of the Protestants on thses threads. They both have responded to my post in a friendly and civil manner on the forum and even through PMs. Even though I do not agree with a lot of their beliefs and for that matter they do not believe in a lot of mine, I still have to respect the way they post. At one time I posted that trying to keep up with all the post in these catholic threads was like trying to kiss a buzz saw. Some post are going to be missed. I miss a lot of them I'm sure.

Maybe if we all show a little more CHrist like behavior toward one another and everyone quit pointing fingers and accusing and condemning the other side we all may learn a little. At least lets be respectful of each others beliefs regardless of whether they differ from ours.



Doghouse -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 6:15:50 PM)

quote:

Not that they need defending but I want to jump in right here and defend both doghouse and Catholicandloveit.

You're a good man, Qtman. Thanks for that; I appreciate it.



kelman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 6:53:20 PM)

quote:

quote:

The following is what God actually says:

Please, then, turn for us to Scripture which speaks of stem cell research, or birth-control,
Demonstrating more RC arrogance....as if it is the only organization which speaks on such issues.

Besides, God's Word is clear on these issues. Do we kill that which is made in the image and likeness of God(Gen 1:27)?...and in Psalm 139:13-16 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body."

Give the Word of God a chance, you might find you like....then again...you're not allowed to, are you?...unless your faith community tells you what it says....too bad.

quote:

or spending time arguing with other Christians on-line rather than helping the less fortunate...
Seems you produce enough argumentative posts yourself. And from the contents, one could only hope more benefit would accrue to the "less fortunate" than to those reading said posts.

quote:

Maybe this is why the Church needs the leadership of a temporal deputy
God clearly disagrees with you since He has appointed no such deputy. You, of course, may have any "temporal deputy" you desire, regardless of the fact God does not sanction such a "deputy".

quote:

to provide a voice for what the Church discerns what is revealed to her by God regarding these topics that are the result of technological and social development since the time of Jesus's ministry here on earth.
Rather, if one would actually trust the written Word of God, one would find God speaks to all the important issues of life.

But then again, how would you know?....your faith community commands you to believe only what it says because you lack the ability to understand God's Word. All of which directly and completely contradicts what God unambiguously declares in Scripture.

quote:

I have formed an opinion that Kelman is not interested in discussion,...
Since I am often is "discussions", it is apparent you're only interested in putting forth a dishonest agenda against a poster on these threads.

Frankly, you steer clear of "discussion" like the plague. You simply prefer to insert caustic remarks putting down and attacking individual posters. Why don't you try actually posting something theological instead of just personal attacks?....that would be quite a novelty.

We know the RC agenda of some....if you can't kill the message, kill the messenger...how typical. Yep...what a bunch of "Christians"...



kelman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 6:55:24 PM)

quote:

The Pope is "Chief Shepherd" for a billion Catholics....
This is simply more evidence of absolute blasphemy.

God tells us that the Lord Jesus Christ is the "Chief Shepherd".

Rome, as usual, denies the Word of God in favor of its modern doctrines and its glorification of the papacy.



kelman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 6:58:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wkirscher

quote:

I have some posts in here that took over an hour to develop, only to be skipped over, ignored, or poo-pooed with "well, you're wrong...Scripture says..."


Doghouse - I find the same frustrations. Well reaseoned scriptural arguments supported by 2000 years of church history are usually ignored. Writings of the great fathers and martyrs of the early church that support these arguments are poo-pooed because they are "foolish" because they don't agree with Protestant man-made tradition. Contradicitions in Protestant doctrine are swept under the rug or deemed "not essential for my personal salvation", while proclaiming unity in the same breath. If there is a response to our posts, it's usually of this variety: "Oh yeah? Well at least ...." followed by some unsubstantiated quote from an anti-Catholic website or something clearly taken out of context.

Courage brother! There are other's reading these posts with an open mind. I've actually had a couple folks PM me for more information.
Oh please, why stoop to such lows just to agree with a "brother", one who is uninterested in discussion but prefers instead personal attacks against other posters?

Have we not been in discussion after lengthy discussion? Or do they not count because we don't agree?

quote:

Sorry, I still haven’t purged all of what my “bible only” pastor’s preached to me. Here is what I meant to write:
Well, obviously you "purged" enough to join a Bible-lite faith community.



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 7:10:07 PM)

Qtman,

KJB said;

quote:

Doghouse does not usually address the actual beef.

I never got a response on the post that I gave that provided actual links to the Vatican and clearly claimed that popes are as "sweet Christ on earth".


You gave me this;

quote:

Not that they need defending but I want to jump in right here and defend both doghouse and Catholicandloveit. Both of these people have consistently, as far as I can tell, posted what they believe and why.


As per my post, please show me where either of them responded and provided any reasonable answer as to why Christians should not be concerned with the Vatican along with Roman Catholic people referring to their popes as "sweet Christ on earth"?

There is no reasonable explanation and they sure have not given any.

Go ahead though.....defend away!

[:)]

KJB



Qtman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 7:24:48 PM)

Sir I have not and do not defend their doctrine. I will however defend their attitude and civility shown on the threads. As I said I have missed posts on here myself. Sometimes they are flyiing so fast I just skip over some intentionally. Unfortunately some of the protestants on here are just as guilty of bad mouthing and condemning as some of the catholics. As a matter of fact I do not read what some people even say unless my name stands out in the post. BTW that goes for the catholics as well as the protestants.



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 7:37:44 PM)

Qtman,

You said you defend both doghouse and Catholicandloveit. You said both of these people have consistently, as far as you can tell, posted what they believe and why.

You were defending them in response to my post and my post had to do about my "beef" about why Doghouse could not give me a straight answer on why they believe any pope should be classified in any sense as "sweet Christ on earth".

So basically you are rebuking me and running to their defense in regard to the Vatican site having articles and writings classifying popes as "sweet Christ on earth" as if Doghouse posted what they believe and why.

Where exactly is the post of "what" or "why" they believe the way they believe on what I was talking about?

I probably missed it.

KJB



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 7:40:03 PM)

Qtman,

quote:

As a matter of fact I do not read what some people even say unless my name stands out in the post.


Should I have read post 7189?

[:D]

KJB



Qtman -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 7:42:53 PM)

Not if you did not want to.

Now before Fritz come back in here and tells us to keep our petty complaints out of the thread and stay on topic I will not respond to any further post along these lines.



gatolover -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 7:45:51 PM)

Doghouse, wkirscher, and Qtman,

What a refreshing exchange of thoughts since last I visited.

Sometimes it pays to visit after a long, trying day.

Pax et bonum,

gatolover

P.S. Ps103: I love your new discussion! I'll try to pop back in here when I can and maybe join in. Thanks for your insight.

Edited to add: Yes, Qtman, Catholicandloveit is awesome, too. [;)] I echo Doghouse's gratitude and, for the record, consider you a brother in Christ no matter what anybody says.



ManimalX -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 8:20:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: patricius79

(See above about the Pope-appointed Cardinals.) There is only one historical Church, and only one which reflects the Biblical description of the Church. There is no historic record of the reformed position, or of even one “reformed” Christian between 100 and 1100 A.D (cf. Mt 5:14).


Because the Roman leadership hadn't yet completely perverted the Gospel, Scripture, or Christ's Church to the point of needing to be reformed. Unfortunately, Rome continued for centuries to pervert the gospel and infect the church with doctrines of men and demons, so God sent faithful protesters to reform His Church and get it back on the right track. Thank God for those faithful men and women!

Again, your constant appeal to "oldness" is probably one of the weakest arguments you can make. Something false can be "old", which only means that it has been false for a really long time.



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 8:47:35 PM)

Qtman,

quote:

Not if you did not want to.


LOL....just wondering because my name did not stand out in your post. [:)]

quote:

Now before Fritz come back in here and tells us to keep our petty complaints out of the thread and stay on topic I will not respond to any further post along these lines.


I am not really complaining about anything.

I was only wondering why you said what you said. [&:]

You said both Doghouse and Catholicandloveit have consistently, as far as you can tell, posted what they believe and why. That was towards my post about Doghouse never answering my beef (post) on the Vatican and popes being called "sweet Christ on earth".

Furthermore.......I said nothing at all about you being in agreement with their doctrines and have no complaints about that one way or another.

I have this feeling that neither Doghouse or Catholicandloveit ever posted "what" or "why" they believe the way they believe on what I was talking about in regard to the Vatican site using "sweet Christ on earth" as a reference to popes.

Its ok though.......no complaints from me on this end. I was just in dialogue and you are certainly free to defend them both.

I have not seen any substantial response to my post where I provided the links to the Vatican along with the quotes......I didnt think I missed any.

[:)]

KJB



wkirscher -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 10:20:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManimalX

quote:

ORIGINAL: patricius79

(See above about the Pope-appointed Cardinals.) There is only one historical Church, and only one which reflects the Biblical description of the Church. There is no historic record of the reformed position, or of even one “reformed” Christian between 100 and 1100 A.D (cf. Mt 5:14).


Because the Roman leadership hadn't yet completely perverted the Gospel, Scripture, or Christ's Church to the point of needing to be reformed. Unfortunately, Rome continued for centuries to pervert the gospel and infect the church with doctrines of men and demons, so God sent faithful protesters to reform His Church and get it back on the right track. Thank God for those faithful men and women!

Again, your constant appeal to "oldness" is probably one of the weakest arguments you can make. Something false can be "old", which only means that it has been false for a really long time.


ManimalX, I was expecting a response to #7180 from you. You used the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch to try to refute the CC and Refromed Church's doctrine of ordination by the imposition of hands. You claimed that he went off to start the Church in Ethiopia but I couln'd find any biblical evidence to support your claims. Instead, all I saw was you claiming a biblical pracitce was ""stupid magical powers" and "laughable magical rituals".

Also, this is the second time you claimed that the Reformers put the Church "back on the right track". So again I will ask the question... Which "right track"? - yours or the Lutherans or the Methodists or the Baptists or the Presbyterians or the Congregationalists or the Reformed Church or the Adventists or the Pentecostals or the Anabaptists or the Anglicans or the "bible only" churches or the "non-denominationals" ....

And another point .... We are not claiming the "oldness" of a doctrine is what gives it merit. It is it's proximity to the Apostles and the fact that these doctrines are usually found to be consistent with multiple geographically disparate churches. I'll use as an example the man-made tradition of "symbolic", "believers only" baptism that the Anabaptists invented. There is absolutely no pre-reformation evidence of this ever being taught by the church. If it was handed down by the Apostles, we would see evidence of this teaching in the early church. Yet we do not. Congregationalism is another example. We see no evidence of it in history. If a doctrine is consistent with scripture and traces all the way back to the first century church, and then a contradictory doctrine comes along 1500 years later, it's not putting the church "back on the right track".



Catholicandloveit -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/3/2009 10:20:43 PM)

[:)] Thank you! Qtman and Gato [:D]

Mary



WildByNature -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 12:39:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wkirscher
WildByNature – welcome to the thread! Hang out with us for a while.

Thank you, but one of the reasons I don't "hang out " in these Catholic threads is disparaging posts like this. With all due respect, please do not assume to know who you are addressing -- how much of the Bible I've read; whether or not I've questioned different interpretations; whether or not I am protestant, etc. OK?

quote:

As for myself, it was the Bible that drew me into the Catholic Church.

And, it is the Bible that repels me away from the Catholic Church.

quote:

All I had to do was start reading ALL of it and not just my pastor’s favorite verses from Paul’s letters.

Well, I have read ALL of it -- several times; and study it daily -- more, in fact, than just my favorite verses from Paul's letters. I guess you're thankful for Vatican II! At least you are still able to read it, though you still can't allow the Holy Spirit to speak to you through it, you've relinquished that God-given right to the pope.

quote:

I also had to question him when he told us what scripture “really means”. Once I started questioning his personal interpretation of scripture, my eyes were opened to the disunity in Protestant teachings, to all of it’s strife and divisions, and to many of the ecclesial practices in scripture that are just flat out ignored by “bible only” churches.

So, you believe you had a pastor who wasn't called by God? That's a shame, but it happens in all religions -- in fact, not all priests are called either. On the positive side, priests don't interpret the Bible, it's already been done for them. OTOH, priests become bishops, and bishops become cardinals, and cardinals become popes ... so there is still that danger of "personal interpretation" in the RCC as well.

And, only "in the Protestant teachings"? Strange, since you said you started reading ALL of the Bible ... if you have finished it you must have read that there has been disunity in teachings, strife, and division in the Body of Christ since the time of the Apostles which is recorded in the Scriptures -- long before the 4th Century when the church in Rome decided to make their doctrine and ecclesial practices "universal"; and, of course, long before the time of the reformation.

I am not a defender of Protestant churches, but if these "Bible only" churches relied solely upon Scripture, then they were not "ignoring" ecclesial practices of the RC which are not taught in the Bible but rather are extra-biblical and based on the "oral traditions" of men. In particular, the Scriptures do not teach apostolic succession or the need for a "pope". And as far as what the RC teaches about the pope, well ... two rhyming words come to mind, but I'll just say ... "catastrophe".

quote:

Of particular concern was their “symbolic only” and “believers only” baptism which is pretty easy to refute using scripture. I knew this contradicted what others, such as the bible-based Reformed Church, believe. Did a little research to find out what the early church believed. Guess what???? Not one single solitary shred of evidence to support the “symbolic only” “believers only” baptism.

Water baptism is not a "particular concern" of mine since it is not necessary for salvation -- now that would be something to be concerned about. But, that's for another thread.

quote:

This wasn’t invented until after the start of the Reformation and is only believed by a small subset of Protestants.

I would have to disagree. But, again, for another thread.

quote:

Same with the Lord’s Supper. Symbolic only? Nope – not until after the Reformation and believed only by a small subset of Protestants.

Again, I would have to disagree. But, this is not on topic for this thread.

quote:

Congregational form of church government? Nope – not until after the Reformation and only by a small subset of Protestants.

The form of church government is not salvific, thus the only objection I would have to a particular form of church government is one that had some sort of "supreme" "vicar" who claims to have the authority of Christ and to be the representative of Christ on earth.

quote:

Anyhow, I think if you stick around, you will see that all of our arguments are based on scripture.

Whether I "stick around" or not, I will never be blinded to the fact that any argument in favor of RC doctrine is un-scriptural -- based on proof texts, oral traditions of man and pseudosyllogisms:
1. dogs bark
2. there is bark on a tree
3. therefore, a dog is a tree.

quote:

The difference you may notice (or maybe not), is that our doctrines will be supported by writings from the early church.

And by "supported" you mean "based on" -- and by "the early church" you mean "the RCC". Trust me, I'll notice the difference.

quote:

Again, welcome!

Again, thank you. I'm sure your welcome and proselytism are sincere. My intent is not to be rude, I am just being blunt.



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 6:45:26 AM)

Doghouse,

In post 7036 I linked the Vatican as the source for a few statements claiming that popes are "sweet Christ on earth". I also provided a few other sources showing that Roman Catholics really do not have an issue with this sort of title being attributed to their popes.

I am not claiming that you along with the Vatican and millions of Roman Catholics cannot believe such a thing.....but cant you see where this type of language can cause a legitimate concern for many Christians?

If popes are called the "vicar of Christ" and then it changes or is used interchangably to imply that popes are as "sweet Christ on earth".......I myself have a problem with that.

I dont see why it should not cause a concern for Christians. Jesus Christ is a unique individual of such majesty and glory that to claim that any mere man is on par with Him as if any man has taken His place is frankly......strange.

The Vatican does not seem to have a problem with this.

Jesus, in a set time and place in real history became flesh and lived among us (human creatures) and this event is not duplicated or replicated by popes and nor should any pope be called "sweet Christ on earth".

I find it harder to imagine that Roman Catholics would not find charity on this matter and simply claim that it would be unreasonable for them to expect Christians to look at a mere man......even if this man was set apart and above all men......and expect Christians to attribute the title "sweet Christ on earth" to him.

Some beliefs can be tolerated and even understood even if I dont believe them......but this is just one more Roman Catholic belief that I cannot tolerate in my mind and heart. There is no way I can see that attribute without being reminded on the other Roman Catholic doctrine that says...."it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff."

Should you have the right to believe what you believe?.....well of course!

Believe it all you desire!

But cant you understand why many others cannot and would not want to believe such a thing?

KJB



KingJamesBond -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (11/4/2009 7:10:23 AM)

WildByNature,

Post 7198.......very nice indeed. [:)]

quote:

And, it is the Bible that repels me away from the Catholic Church.


quote:

Well, I have read ALL of it -- several times; and study it daily -- more, in fact, than just my favorite verses from Paul's letters. I guess you're thankful for Vatican II! At least you are still able to read it, though you still can't allow the Holy Spirit to speak to you through it, you've relinquished that God-given right to the pope.


Isnt that the truth of RC doubletalk?

We are told that it was the Bible leads them to the Roman Catholic church out of one side of the mouth.......and that Protestants do not understand (interpret correctly) out of the other side of the mouth.......and that oral tradition (that Protestants did not have) is as important as Scripture out of the middle of the mouth! LOL

Sort of places them in a sticky situation.

Basically what we have been told according to Roman Catholic traditional and oral teachings is that no person could pick up a Bible and read 'Love your neighbor as yourself' and figure out what that means without guidance from Roman Catholic clergy.

No person (according to Roman Catholic traditional and oral teachings) should be able to pick up a Bible and figure out on their own that it leads them to Rome without the guidance of Rome. [;)]

No person should be able to pick up a Bible and read where it says; "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven." and question popes and Roman Catholic councils on why they would want to place Christians in prison.

I have heard a few times that all roads lead to Rome and I have this feeling that Rome will work to keep people on those roads.

Whatever happened to all the praise and glory for the narrow gate?

KJB



Page: <<   < prev  286 287 [288] 289 290   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI