How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jinc1019
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
david_ruiz said:
Thank you for reading it .Peter did not make a "mistake But it is telling of your predicament when doctrine puts God in a box and says that wind (the Spirit) must work this way, a formula , a method. But I sometimes think Peter made a mistake by saying be baptized then receive the Holy Ghost, cause people would think that is the formula- water baptism = the gift of the Holy Spirit, and forget they had to repent from unbelief ,and BELIEVE first, according to Peter ! You place "special "circumstances on Cornelius ,to explain the extraordinary . Well perhaps there was special circumstances in Ch 2 also . These people crucified the Lord .Perhaps the spirit would not descend unless faith had it’s “work” ,it’s “feet” or proof, in water baptism (public confession) . Alas he did not make a mistake here either .As some have said here there is water baptism and their is Holy Spirit baptism (confirmation ?) This is not to be confused with regeneration ,or indwelling of the Spirit unto faith and salvation. All I see in scripture are people “believing”, having this gift of faith from God. We also know "believe and ye shall be saved, or “they gladly received Peter’s word, then were baptized” (Acts2::41) .One can not gladly receive anything from God unless he is born again ,repented ,believes in the "report , the gospel. I certainly did not gladly receive the good news, until I repented and asked for faith to believe the “report” .“Ask and it shall be given” (Cornelius asked and boy did he receive). So did I, BEFORE any water baptism. It would be extraordinary , except for the fact that it happened to Cornelius, and continues to today.
Click to expand...
As I said, and it’s clear from the events that took place, Peter was withholding Jesus from the gentiles because of the Law. God showed Peter that these people had a desire to be baptized (joined with Christ), and so he sent the Holy Spirit down upon them since they had a desire for baptism. You are correct that Peter was trying to put God in a box, and God showed him, no you can’t. Baptism by desire doesn’t put God in a box, it means that Catholics also believe the Holy Spirit can act in someone’s life prior to baptism, but it also doesn’t negate the necessity of baptism either. It is a grave error to say, “Well I think the Apostle made a mistake when he wrote this and that (because it doesn’t coincide with what I believe).”, because that is simply writing thing off without a logical reason.

The Apostles tell us the baptism is more than just an outward sign, or a ritual, or a ‘work’. They tell us that baptism is uniting us with Christ (Romans 6:4). This is why it is necessary. It’s not just a step to receive the Holy Spirit, but as a way of living in Christ-- you can’t be with Christ if you are not joined with him; though it is better to believe and do good (Mark 9:38) – but he also warns us about this (Matthew 7:22).

Jesus tells us: “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?” (Matthew 6:26). But the birds don’t sit in their nest and wait on God to feed them, they go out and find the food that God provides. God freely provides saving grace, but we have to go out and get it. We obtain it by joining ourselves to Christ in the sacraments and we receive justification by doing works of charity. That’s what the bible teaches.

You see, in order for you to believe what you believe, you have to say, “I THINK that the apostle made a mistake when he said…” because you have to be able to somehow discount clearly written passages in order to hold on to what you believe. I read Acts and I see a story about how Peter was making a mistake and God was showing him that it clearly was a mistake he was making. He sent him a dream, he sent an angel, he sent the Holy Spirit to convince him that salvation (the new Covenant) wasn’t just limited to the Jews, and he showed us that there is a baptism of desire (one in Spirit), but that also baptism of water is necessary (for that is what they desired; to be united with Christ).
 
david_ruiz said:
it is telling of your predicament when doctrine puts God in a box and says that wind (the Spirit) must work this way, a formula , a method. But I sometimes think Peter made a mistake by saying be baptized then receive the Holy Ghost, cause people would think that is the formula- water baptism = the gift of the Holy Spirit, and forget they had to repent from unbelief ,and BELIEVE first, according to Peter !
Click to expand...
Of course belief can come before baptism. We are not ‘putting God in a box’, we are heralding the faith preached from the Apostles. Faith and belief are gifts from God. Baptism, confession, and the Eucharist are also gifts from God. They are all grace, and God can give his grace to people however he chooses, though he has revealed that the sacraments are the* per se* ‘normal’ means of receiving grace.

The predicament you are in is this: Jesus appointed the Apostles and gave them authority for moral instruction of the Church (2 Corinthians 10:8 – ‘edify’ means to instruct morally or intellectually.) Would you have dared argue with that authority, and would you believe that for one reason or another, only the first generation of the Church received this moral instruction from authoritative figures, and then after that it was a free for all, each man to his own teachings and ideals?

“For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.”

Paul wrote Timothy to rebuke with all authority…
 
ivebeenshown said:
of course belief can come before baptism. We are not ‘putting god in a box’, we are heralding the faith preached from the apostles. Faith and belief are gifts from god. Baptism, confession, and the eucharist are also gifts from god. They are all grace, and god can give his grace to people however he chooses, though he has revealed that the sacraments are the* per se* ‘normal’ means of receiving grace.

The predicament you are in is this: Jesus appointed the apostles and gave them authority for moral instruction of the church (2 corinthians 10:8 – ‘edify’ means to instruct morally or intellectually.) would you have dared argue with that authority, and would you believe that for one reason or another, only the first generation of the church received this moral instruction from authoritative figures, and then after that it was a free for all, each man to his own teachings and ideals?

“for the son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.”

paul wrote timothy to rebuke with all authority…
Click to expand...
it is interesting some feel protestants have a problem with "authority " when they agree and obey 8-9-10 layers of god given biblical authority (elders ,bishops ,parents , government etc. )
but do not believe in only one- that of head bishop per their conscience and biblical rendering. Otherwise all things quite equal between protestants and catholics. No this is not an "authority " problem. Beside i am spanish , i just can not see how god would have chosen italians to run the churhc .seriously, most popes, until recently, were italian (and of nobility ?)
 
david_ruiz said:
it is interesting some feel protestants have a problem with "authority " when they agree and obey 8-9-10 layers of god given biblical authority (elders ,bishops ,parents , government etc. )

but do not believe in only one- that of head bishop per their conscience and biblical rendering. Otherwise all things quite equal between protestants and catholics. No this is not an "authority " problem.
Click to expand...
Catholics don’t believe in only one authority. But when we get down to say what kind of authority, we see that not all authorities are equal. The national or state government does not have the same authority as the God-appointed bishops. They are for different purposes.

It really is an issue of authority – you don’t believe that Jesus left his Church with anybody to teach them. The Apostles had authority and you wouldn’t have dared to disagree with them or dissent. But the Apostles appointed people to succeed them in their ministry, to have the same teaching authority, and you openly disagree and dissent.
Beside i am spanish , i just can not see how god would have chosen italians to run the churhc. seriously, most popes, until recently, were italian (and of nobility ?)
Click to expand...
What does nationality have to do with it? Someone could easily say “Besides, I am Hindu, I just can not see how God would have chosen Jews to propagate salvation to mankind.”
 
david_ruiz said:
it is interesting some feel protestants have a problem with "authority " when they agree and obey 8-9-10 layers of god given biblical authority (elders ,bishops ,parents , government etc. )
but do not believe in only one- that of head bishop per their conscience and biblical rendering. Otherwise all things quite equal between protestants and catholics. No this is not an "authority " problem. Beside i am spanish , i just can not see how god would have chosen italians to run the churhc .seriously, most popes, until recently, were italian (and of nobility ?)
Click to expand...
  1. In the OT, God chose the Jews and no one else didn’t he?
  2. Italy didn’t even actually exist until the 19th century. For a long time after the fall of Rome the area was fragmented into various city-states. Plus it was very unlikely that someone outside of the area would get elected as pope since they couldn’t just fly the guy to the Vatican the next day to take office.
 
ivebeenshown;9253388 [QUOTE said:
Catholics don’t believe in only one authority
Click to expand...
. I know , misunderstood .I meant we only differ in one area , one of those many levels of authority, that of head bishop/pope. Sorry.
But when we get down to say what kind of authority, we see that not all authorities are equal. The national or state government does not have the same authority as the God-appointed bishops. They are for different purposes.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
It really is an issue of authority – you don’t believe that Jesus left his Church with anybody to teach them. The Apostles had authority and you wouldn’t have dared to disagree with them or dissent. But the Apostles appointed people to succeed them in their ministry, to have the same teaching authority, and you openly disagree and dissent.
Click to expand...
Disagree. Agree with apostles , and down to this day we have elders/bishops.
What does nationality have to do with it? Someone could easily say "Besides, I am Hindu, I just can not see how God would have chosen Jews to propagate salvation to mankind
Click to expand...
] You tell me,but those are the facts .A Hindu must bow to God when He said, “Salvation is of the Jews”. It is another to say it is of Italian/Roman nature conversely for Christians.
 
JonathonofOhio said:
  1. In the OT, God chose the Jews and no one else didn’t he?
  2. Italy didn’t even actually exist until the 19th century. For a long time after the fall of Rome the area was fragmented into various city-states. Plus it was very unlikely that someone outside of the area would get elected as pope since they couldn’t just fly the guy to the Vatican the next day to take office.
Click to expand...
Quickly ,money sure poured into , and out of Rome , so why not annointed blessed saints ? Apparently Paul and Peter reached there. I know, travel is an issue , but not as much as we think.
 
david_ruiz said:
Quickly ,money sure poured into , and out of Rome , so why not annointed blessed saints ? Apparently Paul and Peter reached there. I know, travel is an issue , but not as much as we think.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of Saints (people recognized as martyrs or have lead holy lives that made a big difference) that went into Rome, and they came from all over. Not sure how that proves your point. Fact is Italy wasn’t a country until the 19th century, and the majority of people in the civilized world were Latin-speaking people, so it isn’t a shocker that a large majority of popes in the past were Latin-speaking men.

Just seems ridiculous that someone would say they don’t see God working through a certain demographic to accomplish a goal, because it isn’t the demographic they belong to. So if most of the popes had been Spanish speaking people would that make it better for you? For me, I don’t care who God chose, as long as I can be saved.
 
david_ruiz said:
Beside i am spanish , i just can not see how god would have chosen italians to run the churhc .seriously, most popes, until recently, were italian (and of nobility ?)
Click to expand...
You reject the Church because you don’t like Italians? :confused:
 
david_ruiz said:
That is like me asking if you accept the church cause you like Italians?
Click to expand...
It’s not at all like that. I didn’t say, “I like how God chose Italians to run the Church…”

Here’s an honest question for you: Do you feel the Holy Spirit led you away from the Church because of a Pope’s ethnic background?
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
It is…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top