Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why Papal rule all wrong? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 12764 | ||
I’m probably going to open a can of worms here but let me anyhow. There has been great debate over the Catholic church and the Pope and his speaking infallibly, check thread Evangelicals and Catholics. Briang made one point that has me thinking, the Pope is head of the Catholic church and what he says the Catholic church does, call it what you will that is what it nets out to be. Is that any better or worst than what Evangelicals have? They may make the decision based on a vote by the congregation, a presbytery, council of elders, pastor or whatever but the end result is the same what ever the decision is you treat it as gospel and live by it. It is not open to discussion and you either accept it or leave and find another church/denomination. In a sense you could say their decision is infallible as far as the group/denomination/church goes. Then there is a argument is the Pope from the line of Peter, I think not, but does it matter? He was chosen to head the Catholic church how does that make him any different than the governing board of any denomination, or Pastor of an independent church? We call the Pope the antichrist but he isn’t condoning homosexuals like the governing board of Methodist are. He is not condoning abortion as the governing board of the Presbyterian are. What makes the Papal form of government all wrong and everything else okay? This is not an endorsement of Catholicism in any shape form or fashion. |
||||||
2 | Why Papal rule all wrong? | NT general Archive 1 | Makarios | 12765 | ||
No, I do not see the idea of one presiding individual over a body of believers (such as a denomination) as something that is 'wrong' or harmful in any way, as long as there is a system of 'checks and balances', that is- the Electoral College elects the President and the "Cardinal college"? elects the Pope. I think that the main "root" of the Protestant 'assault' against the authority of the Pope is.. 1) Catholics maintain that the Pope is a direct successor to the "Office" of Peter. 2) Catholics maintain that the Pope is infallible in his direction of doctrine and interpreting the Scriptures. These two reasons are the reasons why Protestants attack the Pope more often then they do the Methodists for their stance on homosexuality and the Presbyterians for abortion, both of which should warrant a "standing in line" protest from all believers! You are right, we should be more concerned about healing the heresies within instead of focusing on the Catholic church. --Nolan |
||||||
3 | Why Papal rule all wrong? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 12784 | ||
Okay, staying away from the specific issues how is that different than the Baptist board saying to be baptized you must be immersed? Or the Pentecostal’s general boards saying the initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy spirit is speaking in tongues? Are they not claiming what could be considered divine interpretation of the Scripture? Are not their findings then viewed as infallible within the denomination? Take for example the Assemblies of God has had it a policy/rule/tenet of faith that no divorced man could ever become a Pastor. This rule has stood since 1912 and the founding of the denomination, yet this week in Kansas they voted it down. Before this change the claim was the divine will of God is that no divorced man should be a pastor. Now they say that isn’t right that God forgives any divorce that occurred before salvation. Isn’t just the same as the Pope declaring it is the divine will of God that no Catholic should use birth control? Again I know we can debate each issue but ignoring the issues look at the principal involved, isn’t it the same? Each one is saying they have a the “right’ interpretation of the scripture. The Catholics just say it is infallible, when we know it not Saint Christopher being an example. AG saying it is the correct interpretation and refusing to change it even after many challenges until this year. There are many more examples. |
||||||
4 | Why Papal rule all wrong? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 12797 | ||
EdB: You already know of my respect for you. Having said that, I have a problem or two with what you said in your previous post. You write: "Are they not claiming what could be considered divine interpretation of the Scripture? Are not their findings then viewed as infallible within the denomination?" My answers are no and no. That is NOT what they are doing. Catholic and Baptist or Pentecostal church leaders are not the same. It's like comparing holy water with the Holy Spirit. I have never in my life heard a Baptist or Assemblies of God leader who claimed he was infallible. Nor will you find the word infallible applied to any man in the written statements of what each denomination believes. Nor do the churches or individuals in those denominations view the leaders' findings as infallible. In the first place, the demonational leaders of those two churches, when they publish a statement of beliefs, they are not writing or publishing "their findings." They are merely codifying beliefs that the Baptist or AG church already held. Those beliefs came over a period of time and after much studying and growing. No Baptist or AG leader sits in a palace and confers with a church hierarchy to make up doctrine that they claim is infallible. What they do and what they claim is completely different than the practice of the popes of the Roman Catholic Church. If no one in a church takes the responsibility for codifying, writing and publishing what the church specifically teaches, then who would know WHAT the Baptists or AG believed? And it's not enough to say, "Well, we just believe the Bible." As has been illustrated numerous times on the Forum, one must ask the question: What interpretation of the Bible do you hold to on various doctrinal points? We all use the same Bible and all quote the same verses, but we do not all see eye to eye on the meaning of those verses. If the AG modified or cancelled a certain policy, so what? Never did any of the leaders claim for himself infallibility. Would you rather they stuck rigidly to some past century and refused to walk in increased light as God gives it to them? I just think it's ludicrous to compare AG and Baptists leaders to the Pope and to insinuate that these Protestant denominational officers are pretending to be infallible, when in fact they are not. EdB, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that YOU are ludicrous. I'm just making an obeservation on what you said. I must say that, if anything, I am your defender not your attacker. Your colleague, not your critic. Grace to you, John |
||||||
5 | Why Papal rule all wrong? | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 12820 | ||
JVH0212 your jumping in too deep and missing what I'm saying. Your right no Baptist or AG or any other protestant denomination that I'm aware has ever claimed to speak infallibly. What I’m saying is the governed committee what ever it is wields nearly the same authority the Pope does. They the governing committee however it is constructed says this is what we believe the scriptures to say and therefore this denomination holds those beliefs. How is that different than the Pope saying this is what the scriptures say and we Catholics are going to hold this belief? I’m not comparing the Baptist convention or the AG general Assembly to the Pope. What I’m saying is however the decision is made it basically holds the same effect. If AG or Baptist or Methodist decide the scriptures say march to the right they march to the right. If at a later time the same group says the scriptures say march to the left they march to the left. Is that so much different than the Pope saying the scriptures say march to the right or left? Is all I’m saying. By the way you say there is no protestant denomination that has men sitting in palace deciding what is to be done or not. How about men that sit in a office building you and I combined couldn’t even pay the electric bill for let alone ever be allowed in. That have men and women so entrenched in a good old boy system they couldn’t and wouldn’t be removed from office until they die. Sitting there deciding the direction for the church and issuing there findings as we interpret scripture to say thus and such. Isn’t that pretty close to the Vatican? Please don’t read any thing into what I’m saying. I’m certainly not condoning the Papal government nor am I saying the Catholic church is right. Love you my brother Ed |
||||||
6 | Why Papal rule all wrong? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 12828 | ||
EdB: I want to thank you for your patience in clarifying and giving further explanation to your points in the previous post. I do appreciate it, my friend. God bless, John |
||||||