B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Christatone, Thank you for your ingnorance of The RCC you did a very good job,keep up the good work…Your ignarance is running rampant.
- Status
M
moondweller
Guest
Actually, you’re STILL missing the whole point of asserting infallibility. Infallibility forbids all questioning of the “infallible.” RCs call this “unity,” but it is, in fact, merely constrained conformity. :hey_bud:
W
Worthy5
Guest
Moondweller, please let me know what your indepedent criterion is for evaluating your statements so I can begin my analysis. Thanks God Bless
P
PRmerger
Guest
Do you have that Magisterial document, yet, moondweller?
M
Memaw
Guest
Infallibility demands Truth and Truth doesn’t leave room for questions or doubts. Truth is Unity in its fullest!! Unity with Jesus Christ. God Bless, Memaw
P
PRmerger
Guest
Moondweller, how many times have you left a church because you have questioned a fallible preacher’s doctrinal teachings?
Mathematically, it’s highly probable that you’ve disagreed with LOTS regarding a fallible preacher’s interpretation of Scripture–there’s so many ways to interpret the Bible’s teachings on: baptism, Sabbath, anointing, speaking in tongues, divorce, abortion, homosexuality…etc etc etc!
After all, he’s fallible, so he could be wrong. In fact, by definition, WILL be wrong on many, many interpretations.
I’m guessing you won’t answer this post. But I’m hoping this will be a moment for you to reflect on your position. And, this post is also for the many lurkers who’ll be saying, “Yeah! Why would I follow a fallible man’s *non-authoritative *interpretation of Scripture when, by definition, he’ll be WRONG at some point?”
M
moondweller
Guest
There you go!!! :doh2: Tell this to PRmerger. He doesn’t quite get it. The Magesterium of RCC asserts infallibility, hence, no room for questions or doubts by those “loyal” to it (taken straight from his signature line).
Well, truth isn’t “unity,” nor can truth guarantee unity. Jesus said “I am…the truth…” (Jn. 14:6). Most opposed Him then, most still do. Some men now claim themselves to be the truth by asserting “infallibility.” And many who believe this assertion rally around them and religiously conform to their “infallible” teachings. But one must not confuse religious conformity with what Jesus prayed for:John 17:20 ¶ "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, {are} in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me."The unity Christ prays for is not hierarchical religious unity, but one of identity in Him and the Father. And this is achieved through faith in Christ alone.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Moondweller, where is your independent criterion. I cannot evaluate what you are saying without it. God Bless
P
PRmerger
Guest
Did you find that Magisterial document yet, moondweller? I can picture you feverishly googling to find it, but alas, to no avail.
Nevertheless, I have provided you with lots of Magisterial statements that say we must question.
Here’s something from a cardinal that everyone knows is true: “A thousand questions do not equal a single doubt”. Cardinal John Henry Newman
M
moondweller
Guest
I can honestly say I have never left a church fellowship for that reason. I have visited several churches (studied the doctrines of the major denominations, including RC’ism), but I have become a member of only a few in my life so far. My change was geographical - I moved.
Before I become a member of a church fellowship I read their statement of faith and have a thorough theological discussion with its leadership (pastor, elders, etc.).
However, I would not hesitate in a nanosecond to leave any church fellowship that strayed from the fundamental, Biblical teaching of salvation “by grace” “through faith” in Jesus Christ alone:…and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:8-9)And identifies all true believers as…"…His workmanship, created (past tense, upon belief) in Christ Jesus for good works (not by them), which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."False teachers can rise up in any church fellowship (2 Pet. 2:1), and when their teachings are embraced by its leadership, the road to apostasy is paved. The name of the road I then would take is “OUT.”
But simply asserting infallibility and believing the assertion changes nothing. In reality error can still be taught but in this particular case can never be questioned for the sake of “loyalty.” In fact, such an environment creates a perfect, unhindered breeding ground for error.
M
moondweller
Guest
You can question all you want, PR, but of the “infallible” you can only inquire. “Infallibility” leaves no room for the questioning of that which is asserted to be. But one can ask, “should I believe the assertion?” And one should then ponder the consequences of embracing that belief.Did you find that Magisterial document yet, moondweller? I can picture you feverishly googling to find it, but alas, to no avail.
Nevertheless, I have provided you with lots of Magisterial statements that say we must question.
Here’s something from a cardinal that everyone knows is true: “A thousand questions do not equal a single doubt”. Cardinal John Henry Newman
None of your “Magisterial statements” stated that you must question its infallibility.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, moondweller, I really have doubts about the veracity of that statement.
Ah. So you’ve made yourself the infallible authority on statements of faith?
A mini-pope! Wow.You’ve shopped for churches that fit YOUR theological belief rather than humbly submitting to Christ’s. :tsktsk:
Well, of course you should leave! The leadership is bound to be faulty, yes? By definition they WILL BE IN ERROR at some point. You’d better get your bags packing. Again.
M
moondweller
Guest
And I understand thoroughly why you “cannot.”
M
moondweller
Guest
Calling me a liar changes nothing.Well, moondweller, I really have doubts about the veracity of that statement.
No, I call no man “infallible” (save the Theanthropic Man), whether Pope or mini-Pope.Ah. So you’ve made yourself the infallible authority on statements of faith?
How do you come up with the assumption that those I passed over were teaching “Christ’s” theology?
I do as the Scriptures teach and daily put on “the full armor of God” (for a description see Eph. 6:13-19).
S
SHW
Guest
True saving faith in Christ is achieved by obedience to His Church’s authority. This authority was given to His Church alone, not to individuals.
Luke 10:16 “He who hears you (MY CHURCH) hears Me, he who rejects you (MY CHURCH) rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”
His Church speaks for Him. He alone set up the hierarchical nature of His Church. In order to have perfect unity, there has to be a hierarchy. Remember that saying, “Too many chiefs, not enough Indians?” Protestant sects all expect to be the chiefs instead of the followers. Jesus said, “Come follow me.” The only way we can truly follow Him is to be subject to His Church which has His authority on earth until He returns at His Second Coming.
We cannot legitimately change this fact nor can we change the hierarchical nature of His Church. Protestant sects have all disobeyed His command to listen to His Church and obey what she teaches.
The Church has the final authority on matters of faith and morals and disciplinary matters.
Matthew 18:17 “And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”
The Church, not the Bible, and not individuals, is the support and foundation of the Truth of Jesus Christ’s gospel:
1 Timothy 3:15 “but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
Truth is not determined by democratic votes nor by dissenting votes.
Belief/faith in Christ cannot be achieved nor maintained without obedience to His commands. What commands? Ask His Church, the one which He promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against, the one with the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He promised, “He who hears my Church, hears me; he who rejects my Church rejects me.” In other words, “He who obeys my Church obeys me.”
So many persons are trying to make it into heaven but have no “key” to get in!
P
PRmerger
Guest
I’m just saying.
Based on your history here of making claims without being able to back them up, it would seem logical for anyone to indulge in some doubts about your other claims.
To wit:
and
No back up provided whatsoever, despite *numerous *requests. We must assume that what you posted was a lie.
Indeed you do! See Poverbs 18:1 “He who separates himself seeks his own desire; He quarrels against all sound wisdom.”
Oh, and here’s another Catholic (canonized) with a famous quote about questioning. Credo ut intelligam St. Anselm.
M
Memaw
Guest
Me thinks you need to read ALL of Chapter 17 of John. If you go around in circles long enough, one gets dizzy! God Bless, Memaw
S
SHW
Guest
You do not have a correct understanding of Scripture.
Yes, Jesus saved us by His free gift of grace through our faith in Him. This is the only way that we could be saved since no works, either works of the Law of Moses or righteous works, could atone for Adam’s sin which made us all enemies of God by inheritance.
However, there is no Scripture which states that once we have been reconciled to God as friends through Baptism, that we cannot lose this gift through our own free will actions by either sins of commission or sins of omission.
In fact, Scripture gives us many examples of persons losing their precious gifts of salvation after they received them. Most of the verses in the epistles actually warn of this very danger so if you are taking a couple of Scriptures and interpreting them to mean that once we are saved, that we cannot lose our Salvation, then you have not interpreted these Scriptures correctly.
What are lukewarm Christians? They are Christians who do not bear fruit/do good works. By not doing so, they are committing sins of omission. They are not loving their neighbors as themselves.
Revelation 3:16 “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.”
Jesus promises to vomit these non-fruit-bearing Christians out of His mouth! “Vomitus” does not inherit eternal life!
1 Timothy 5:8 “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
If you do not provide for your own relatives, then you have actually denied the faith, and you are now worse than an unbeliever. We know that unbelievers are not saved!
1 John 2:4 “He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
A person can become baptized and claim to be a Christian, but if he does not obey God’s commandments, then he really does not know Christ at all, and he is therefore a liar. Belief in Christ cannot be separated from obedience to Christ!
This is why Jesus states that we can deny Him by our works, by either sinning against His commandments or else by refusing to do good works.
Titus 1:16 “They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.”
What is the fate of persons who do not know God and of those persons who do not obey God?
2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Romans 2:6-9 “God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7** eternal life** to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;”
Those Christians who either do not obey God’s commandments and/or who do not do good works (fulfill His purpose for them) after they become Christians will receive the wrath of God.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Moondweller, In other words, what justification do you have to say what you say? How do you know what you know? Also, why are you not using the original Greek or Hebrew when you are interpreting scripture? Just curious. Thanks and God Bless.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
As someone who has walked away from my faith – I suppose I don’t have much credibility on this issue; but I feel compelled to comment anyway (and you folks can take it for what its worth I suppose).
When I was a believer I was raised Roman Catholic, and throughout most of my life I was a farily good Catholic (though far from perfect). I was baptized, had my first communion, confirmation, served as an alter boy, went to Catholic school as a child, and was involved with the church in many other ways.
That being said in my first year of college (as an undergrad) I read some John Calvin & became so enthralled by his work I subsequently read most of his Institutes; along with substantial study of St. Augustine. During this time I also studied scripture in depth. I read the bible so many times I can still cite scripture today (over ten years later) from memory. I had to admit to myself Calvin interpreted scripture more accurately then perhaps any other theologian in history (maybe with the exception of Augustine). I continued my studies – reading Aquinas, Wesley, Luther, Spurgeon, and many others. To this day I would always side with Calvin with regard to scriptural interpretation.
The problem is very few Christians throughout history shared Calvin’s view. There’s always been a disconnect between intellectual theologians and the laity. When you read the apostolic fathers (Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp) you can’t ignore the fact that predestination was an immensely important reality for them. Indeed their letters in many cases almost mirrored the Pauline epistles (and at least I get the impression they would have very clearly sided with Augustine & Calvin on predestination and grace). But then turn to early apologists, most notably Justin Martyr; and a very different picture begins to emerge. Notwithstanding the opinion of a minority of theologians IMO Martyr would have almost certainly sided with theologians like Jacob Arminius and John Wesley.
Then came Aquinas followed by Luis Molina – who both remain immensely influential (particularly in Roman Catholic circles; but at least in the case of Molina also in Arminian protestant circles – particularly among theologians like William Lane Craig). The point of all my dribble is that the bible has never amenable to uniform interpretation. Even within the CC there exists different orders who hold different soteriological perspectives (i.e. contrast the Jesuits with the Benedictines); and of course the same holds true with protestants (indeed to a much higher degree).
The first Christians were waiting for the world to end. They thought the end would come any day; much like protestants sects that began to emerge at the turn of the century like the Jehovah Witnesses. You can even see hints of the apostles trying to dispel the notion that Christians should be in the business of trying to predict when the end will come. Then as the church began to institutionalize it began to plan for the long term (and the very apocalyptic early view eventually waned). While the church remained very dogmatic (and used fear and frightening imagery to compel obedience) very few Christians believed that it was beyond anyone’s capacity to have faith. Indeed the idea of punishing dissenters is premised on the idea that everyone is capable of faith – though of course the bible does not say this. The bible very clearly states that faith is a gift from god; and it’s not granted universally.
The CC of course holds tradition has authority equal that of scripture. It has promulgated several avenues to create doctrine (i.e. papal infallibility, sacred & ordinary magesterium, episcopal councils, etc.). It has taken the defacto view that where they believe scripture isn’t clear on its face – they may promulgate doctrine to fill in the gaps. This has resulted in a very Arminian outlook among the majority of Catholics (both Eastern and Roman Rite). Indeed Arminian soteriology is also the majority view within protestantism. There’s good reason for this – Arminian soteriology is perceived as the kinder view. It portrays in the mind of most a more loving god than Calvinism does. Even Calvin himself described double predestination as the “horrible decree.” Well, no one wants a god who makes horrible decrees – notwithstanding this is exactly what the bible states.
Personally I think it’s great that this sort of theological perspective emerged; because it has produced some really good things. Take the Quakers as an example. They were the heart of the underground railroad in this country. They didn’t just talk the talk like most other Christians, they truly walked the walk. Wesley himself wrote many sermons blasting our treatment of Native Americans; and overall John Wesley was the real deal. He was a guy who you could literally slap in the face and he would look back smiling – with a calm kind demeanor & probably try and help you figure out why you were so darn angry. He was the sort of guy no one could figure out how to dislike; even those who vehemently disagreed with him. Heck his best friend was a Calvinist (George Whitfield).
If Muslims stopped taking such a literal view of the Koran I have no doubt the world would be a much better place to live in. Thankfully Christians have by and large walked away from literalism (and literalism led to some pretty sad moments in history like the church imprisoning Galileo for his public disagreement with geocentric cosmology, or Puritan lunacy during our colonial period – just to name a couple examples). Unfortunately biblical literalism is still around; particularly here in the United States.
When I was a believer I was raised Roman Catholic, and throughout most of my life I was a farily good Catholic (though far from perfect). I was baptized, had my first communion, confirmation, served as an alter boy, went to Catholic school as a child, and was involved with the church in many other ways.
That being said in my first year of college (as an undergrad) I read some John Calvin & became so enthralled by his work I subsequently read most of his Institutes; along with substantial study of St. Augustine. During this time I also studied scripture in depth. I read the bible so many times I can still cite scripture today (over ten years later) from memory. I had to admit to myself Calvin interpreted scripture more accurately then perhaps any other theologian in history (maybe with the exception of Augustine). I continued my studies – reading Aquinas, Wesley, Luther, Spurgeon, and many others. To this day I would always side with Calvin with regard to scriptural interpretation.
The problem is very few Christians throughout history shared Calvin’s view. There’s always been a disconnect between intellectual theologians and the laity. When you read the apostolic fathers (Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp) you can’t ignore the fact that predestination was an immensely important reality for them. Indeed their letters in many cases almost mirrored the Pauline epistles (and at least I get the impression they would have very clearly sided with Augustine & Calvin on predestination and grace). But then turn to early apologists, most notably Justin Martyr; and a very different picture begins to emerge. Notwithstanding the opinion of a minority of theologians IMO Martyr would have almost certainly sided with theologians like Jacob Arminius and John Wesley.
Then came Aquinas followed by Luis Molina – who both remain immensely influential (particularly in Roman Catholic circles; but at least in the case of Molina also in Arminian protestant circles – particularly among theologians like William Lane Craig). The point of all my dribble is that the bible has never amenable to uniform interpretation. Even within the CC there exists different orders who hold different soteriological perspectives (i.e. contrast the Jesuits with the Benedictines); and of course the same holds true with protestants (indeed to a much higher degree).
The first Christians were waiting for the world to end. They thought the end would come any day; much like protestants sects that began to emerge at the turn of the century like the Jehovah Witnesses. You can even see hints of the apostles trying to dispel the notion that Christians should be in the business of trying to predict when the end will come. Then as the church began to institutionalize it began to plan for the long term (and the very apocalyptic early view eventually waned). While the church remained very dogmatic (and used fear and frightening imagery to compel obedience) very few Christians believed that it was beyond anyone’s capacity to have faith. Indeed the idea of punishing dissenters is premised on the idea that everyone is capable of faith – though of course the bible does not say this. The bible very clearly states that faith is a gift from god; and it’s not granted universally.
The CC of course holds tradition has authority equal that of scripture. It has promulgated several avenues to create doctrine (i.e. papal infallibility, sacred & ordinary magesterium, episcopal councils, etc.). It has taken the defacto view that where they believe scripture isn’t clear on its face – they may promulgate doctrine to fill in the gaps. This has resulted in a very Arminian outlook among the majority of Catholics (both Eastern and Roman Rite). Indeed Arminian soteriology is also the majority view within protestantism. There’s good reason for this – Arminian soteriology is perceived as the kinder view. It portrays in the mind of most a more loving god than Calvinism does. Even Calvin himself described double predestination as the “horrible decree.” Well, no one wants a god who makes horrible decrees – notwithstanding this is exactly what the bible states.
Personally I think it’s great that this sort of theological perspective emerged; because it has produced some really good things. Take the Quakers as an example. They were the heart of the underground railroad in this country. They didn’t just talk the talk like most other Christians, they truly walked the walk. Wesley himself wrote many sermons blasting our treatment of Native Americans; and overall John Wesley was the real deal. He was a guy who you could literally slap in the face and he would look back smiling – with a calm kind demeanor & probably try and help you figure out why you were so darn angry. He was the sort of guy no one could figure out how to dislike; even those who vehemently disagreed with him. Heck his best friend was a Calvinist (George Whitfield).
If Muslims stopped taking such a literal view of the Koran I have no doubt the world would be a much better place to live in. Thankfully Christians have by and large walked away from literalism (and literalism led to some pretty sad moments in history like the church imprisoning Galileo for his public disagreement with geocentric cosmology, or Puritan lunacy during our colonial period – just to name a couple examples). Unfortunately biblical literalism is still around; particularly here in the United States.
- Status