Catholicism (Authority, Succession, and Baptism)

  • Thread starter Thread starter dbacks5439
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SoonerServant said:
If Peter was such a leader, then why did Paul have to correct him in Gal. 2:11-21. Does the Pope show discremination? Can he be wrong in his conduct? If so, who is to correct him?
Click to expand...
Just because we believe the Pope to be infallible, does not mean he is perfect. Infallibility simply means he is prevented from teaching error. Do you believe the Apostles were prevented from teaching error when they preached (Remember they had no New Testament to base their teachings on)? Peters mistake was not in teaching, but in behavior.

BTW, please tell me what happened to the teaching authority of the apostls. And who had the authority to put together the New Testament? Remember there was no attempt to form the NT canon until long after the last apostle died.
 
If you believe then your faith will not waver. If your faith wavers then perhaps you don’t truly believe. You either have faith or you don’t. It’s not something that can be measured.
 
We’re human. Even the Pope is human, and can make mistakes. However, in matters of faith and doctrine, what he says goes. Satan can never prevail against us, as stated in Mt. 16:17. Our being here for 2000 years is a testimony to that. Plus, if we can’t trust our Bishops, who can we trust? A baptist minister? But what about a presbyterian minister? Methodist? Who can we trust to give us the Truth?
 
SoonerServant said:
If even an apostle of God could act out of line, then how can you know that the Pope hasn’t been having hookers over every night. It’s unsafe and irresponsible and foolish to put one man as the representative of everyone. If he’s ever caught in a scandle, which I’m sure your bishops will do a great job covering, then the reputation of the entire Catholic denomination will be ruined.
Click to expand...
So by that reasoning, if an Apostle was out of line, then how can you trust their teaching? Your arguement reminds me of the man who is sawing off the branch he is sitting on.
 
The individual churches kept the letters they were sent and recorded what the Apostles taught them. And by the way, these manuscripts weren’t kept perfectly and preserved from the first century church til now. In fact most of the Bible was lost for around four-hundred years. So don’t try to say that the Catholic church has been around since the beginning.
 
Read Jude 11. He says false teachers perish “with Korah’s rebellion.” What was Korah’s rebellion. If you read Numbers 16, you see Korah and his followers rejected the leaders God had appointed over the Israelites. In the same way, these modern false teachers rejected the teaching authority of the church.
You do believe that the Apostles had authority of the Church, don’t you? If so, whatever became of that authority?
 
That’s the point. In every letter they wrote, it starts with them assuing us that they were divinely chosen by God. How do you know that the Pope is divinely chosen. This is why they could speak infallibely. Where is the revelation that gives the Pope his authority?
 
could you back that up with facts please?

Evidence from the Early Church Fathers would help
 
SoonerServant said:
That’s the point. In every letter they wrote, it starts with them assuing us that they were divinely chosen by God. How do you know that the Pope is divinely chosen. This is why they could speak infallibely. Where is the revelation that gives the Pope his authority?
Click to expand...
Mt. 16:16-19
 
SoonerServant said:
That’s the point. In every letter they wrote, it starts with them assuing us that they were divinely chosen by God. How do you know that the Pope is divinely chosen. This is why they could speak infallibely. Where is the revelation that gives the Pope his authority?
Click to expand...
In the book of Acts, we see that after Judas died, the Apostles met to choose his successor. This is how Peter’s successors were chosen. Even the Eastern Orthodox recognize the See of Rome as Peter’s successor. All the baloney about the Pope “being antichrist” did come until Luther’s Deformation in the 1500s.

Again, I ask you. WHAT BECAME OF APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY???
 
dbacks5439 said:
could you back that up with facts please?

Evidence from the Early Church Fathers would help
Click to expand...
Lotsa luck. According to folks like Sooner (and I know because I used to be one) Christianity went “off the rails” some time after the Apostles died and wasn’t restored until the “reformation.” :rolleyes:

So he’s not going to recognize any of the ECF as having any authority.
 
I’d like to know why he puts so much authority on the apostles, and on Paul. If they claim to have authority and he believes them, why not the same for the Pope?
 
RNRobert said:
In the book of Acts, we see that after Judas died, the Apostles met to choose his successor. This is how Peter’s successors were chosen. Even the Eastern Orthodox recognize the See of Rome as Peter’s successor. All the baloney about the Pope “being antichrist” did come until Luther’s Deformation in the 1500s.

Again, I ask you. WHAT BECAME OF APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY???
Click to expand...
I like that 🙂
 
dbacks5439 said:
I’d like to know why he puts so much authority on the apostles, and on Paul. If they claim to have authority and he believes them, why not the same for the Pope?
Click to expand...
I’ve debated with a number of Protestants on this forum, and whenever I ask “what became of apostolic authority?” I get a deafening silence. I wonder why…:hmmm:.
 
Apostlic Authority died with the Apostles. Do you believe in speaking in tongues today?
 
SoonerServant said:
I never said it was spiritual. I said it was made of living stones. ppl. If you’ll notice there wasn’t ever a leader of all the churches in the first century. The apostles, plural, went from country to country establishing churches. And from time to time they would revisit them or write them letters to correct and edify. “The church” refers to the congregation of PEOPLE in the country and city, who comprise the church. It says take one or two, then it says to tell the church. it simply means tell the rest of the congregation.
Click to expand...
Which congregation? Which church? Where does one go to “tell it to the church” if it is merely a “spiritual” church? And how does one find it if it is invisible?

Further, what happens when there is a disagreement that requires a decision from the church as shown in the passage above. Let’s say that a wife becomes pregnant but does not want any more children; she wants to have an abortion. The husband goes to the Catholic Church which teaches that abortion is absolutely wrong. But the wife chooses a church that teaches that abortion is a matter of personal choice.

How can this matter be resolved since the “invisible” church – which is bigger than any one denomination – does not have doctrinal unity? How decided what is and is not true concerning the Christian faith? How decides what is and is not good doctrine? What is and is not moral? Who decides what is right and wrong? Who speaks for the church in these matters? Or what happens when everyone claims to speak for the church? This latter issue is actually what is occurring within Christianity today. Each pastor of every congregation is acting essentially as if he is the shepherd of his own flock. There are thousands upon thousands of pastors deciding upon the basis of their own individual understanding of scripture as to what is and is not good for their flocks.
 
Apperently, you don’t know about the church. In every church the apostles appointed elders over the congregation. They left us the guide lines by which we are to elect these men. They also left us the guide lines for appointing decons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top