Bible Question:
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. |
Bible Answer: You honestly don't see any difference between: a) a Pope, appointed to a lifetime position, and accountable to no other human; and b) the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, who has to be re-elected to hold his post, and who is accountable to others in the church? In a very real sense, the president of the SBC must answer to the local pastors. He is not an absolute dictator. If he went contrary to the wishes of the majority on every issue, they would vote him out at the next election. Contrast that with the case of the Pope. Do you think the Pope answers to the clergymen throughout the world OR is it the other way around? Do Catholic pastors not have to give an account to the Pope upon demand? There's no difference between ONE MAN having ABSOLUTE CONTROLS and a church where a vote is taken among laymen or pastors to make policy? I'd say there's a world of difference. 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? No and no, not really. It most definitely may be re-opened for discussion at a later time. Also, remember EVERY LOCAL SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH is autonomous. The Catholic church makes no claim to autonomous local churches. Baptist policy in a local church is NOT THE COMMAND of one person. Financial and other major decisions in the local Baptist churches are arrived at by a vote of the congregation, not by pastoral fiat. For that matter, the preacher can be voted out. Ever hear of a Catholic congregation voting their priest out? Or sending an angry letter to the Pope telling him what the local church has decided to do? I don't think so. In a sense you CANNOT say their (the Evangelical leaders') decision is infallible as far as the group/denomination/church goes. And no one ever has claimed their decision is infallible. Again, it is NOT the same thing as it is with Roman Catholicism. EdB, thanks for sharing your views with us. You and I are at liberty to disagree over some points, are we not? After all, we don't belong to an organization that bans all criticism and in past history has burned at the stake reformers and so-called heretics who didn't cave in to The Church. If I were there with you right now, I would say: "OK, Ed, we don't agree on that one. Let's take a break and drink a Pepsi and go on to talk about something else." |