Can Christianity survive without the Pope?

[Albion]

On the other hand sola scriptura means to individually evaluate all doctrines according to the only authority, the Scriptures. Yet in reality, all that occurs is that one Christian measures the scriptural interpretations of other Christians against the standard of his own scriptural interpretation, so tradition, church etc may be taken into account, rather than placing the final authority in Scripture as it intends to do. This concept of Scripture places the final authority in the reason and judgment of each individual believer - back to relativism, subjectivism, and the theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today.

Any help for you? Does it ring any bells for you?

Oh no. You may have pegged Solo Scriptura correctly, but your treatment of Sola Scriptura misses the mark. None of what you said in the last sentence is part of Sola Scriptura in any way. It's just an editorial based upon a generalized and inaccurate perception of people who say that they are believers in Sola Scriptura...and not at all about Sola Scriptura itself. One could just as easily say of Tradition that it's an exercise in superstition.

Anyway, this is not the topic of the thread.

What I'd really like is for someone who agrees with the premise that Christianity couldn't or can't survive unless there's a Pope to explain why that would be so.

 

[Rick Otto]

That's right, and it makes reason sound completely impotent and truth completely unknowable.

 

[Albion]

That's right, and it makes reason sound completely impotent and truth completely unknowable.

That's true, but my point was only that his line of thought is the same old one that we've heard before from people who really don't understand Sola Scriptura to be what it is. It is a method. If it is a correct method, then it is. If it is not a correct method, then it is not. BUT this is completely separate from how many people using it arrive at whatever conclusions they do and why. The method is either right or wrong and this does not depend upon the abilities of any individual who says that he accepts Sola Scriptura.

The argument against Sola Scriptura that evaluates it on the basis of what the observer thinks of the people who agree to Sola Scriptura is like saying "The Bible is nothing but confusion and contradictions...just look at the different interpretations people reading it come up with! Of course it can't be God's word so long as the people reading it are not in agreement about its meaning!"

 

[Heber]

I did say, at the outset, that it is NOT EASY to explain the difference - there are many academics who cannot adequately explain the fine difference, so don't knock those that try to help, please... unless you are able to give the definitive answer, of course, in which case feel free to do so, instead of stating the obvious:

If it is a correct method, then it is. If it is not a correct method, then it is not

 

[Heber]

What I'd really like is for someone who agrees with the premise that Christianity couldn't or can't survive unless there's a Pope to explain why that would be so.

Do you really think there is anyone with this viewpoint as a solid, arguable case?

 

[darkshadow]

Greetings. I see the peter and pope threads are being discussed ad-nauseam again so I would like to make a simple poll for ALL denominations to answer. I am not talking about if he was simply a Bishop of Rome and only for that city but a Grand Pope of all Christianity.

So this poll is quite simple "CAN CHRISTIANITY SURVIVE TODAY WITHOUT THE POPE/PAPACY OF ROME"

The answer is 'yes', since as many do Christianity is being associated with Catholicism, which are not the same.

 

[Heber]

I think most people here are agreed on this, hence the poll result in the OP but...the finer mechanics of who/what the office of Pope has been/is/could be/ought to be is the matter that is exercising the ol' grey matter!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think most people here are agreed on this, hence the poll result in the OP but...the finer mechanics of who/what the office of Pope has been/is/could be/ought to be is the matter that is exercising the ol' grey matter!

Personally, I would like to hear discussion in this. I think we would see some interesting posts.

 

[Heber]

JC - do lead off, then...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

JC - do lead off, then...

I will try...

In the early church we saw that the Bishop of Rome was looked to by other Patriarchs to help in deciding and supporting doctrines, kind of like a father to his children in a dispute.

 

[Heber]

I'm tempted to say, "and..." at this juncture as I cannot see your point here. I expect many people looked to others for similar advice and support, hence the varied doctrines that had to be hammered out so that a basic belief pattern, acceptable to all (well, almost all), could be achieved. Just as happened in Acts 15 with the Gentiles who wanted to join the synagogues. The resultant letter was sent out because it was in accord with the Scriptures and the Ruach HaKodesh - not because any man defined the rules.

 

[MamaZ]

Well being that we need no man to teach us and being that Christ lives we do not need a pope to have Christianity. For Christianity is not from the pope but from Christ Himself.

 

[Taloraan4]

Always thought that Christianity was dependant on Christ and not some sinner for survival.

The point of Jesus' statements of Peter is that Peter is the rock in his role as confessor, and others build on the foundation by their proclamation of the same confession. I read nothing that talks about popes or whoever taking Peter's role, or it even being able to be passed on. Rather, we who were to come build on that foundation of confession by believing and proclaiming it, and in turn build and strengthen the church.

Only the catholic church is dependant on the pope because he is their earthly leader, just as the Salvos have their general, the Baptists have their whatever, and so on. Each denomination needs effective leadership to give them god-inspired vision and direction, but no denomination needs or is dependant on the leadership of other denominations. That said, we should respect each other's leadership and work together where possible to further the kingdom. Rather, it is we who are dependant on God to speak to and direct our leaders so that we can do and achieve his purpose. He doesn't need us but I believe he chooses to use the current order of things for maximum effeciency with each different denomination often reaching out to different parts of the community and bring different areas of society to light and so on.

That's IMO.

 

[MamaZ]

Christianity is just that CHRISTianity.. Not popeianity..

 

[Albion]

What I'd really like is for someone who agrees with the premise that Christianity couldn't or can't survive unless there's a Pope to explain why that would be so.

Do you really think there is anyone with this viewpoint as a solid, arguable case?

Maybe. That doesn't mean that they have a good case. But it's the reason that this thread exists. I would suppose that at least the writer of the OP has some reason for asking...and there are nine others who, amazingly enough, answered (the poll) to agree that Christianity cannot survive minus a pope.

At any rate, if no one can think of any reason why Christianity cannot survive without one church having a pope, we ought to close or abandon the thread and turn to some other one in which there is something to discuss.

 

[Albion]

I will try...

In the early church we saw that the Bishop of Rome was looked to by other Patriarchs to help in deciding and supporting doctrines, kind of like a father to his children in a dispute.

Whoa. I don't recall that we ever "saw" that! Can you point to the post you have in mind, or at least briefly restate the evidence you are thinking of?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well being that we need no man to teach us and being that Christ lives we do not need a pope to have Christianity. For Christianity is not from the pope but from Christ Himself.

Who do you appeal to?

John 19:15 Those yet Cry-out "take-away! take-away! crucify! Him". Is saying to them the Pilate "the King of ye I shall be crucifying?". Answered the Chief-priests "not we are having a King except Caesar

Acts 25:10 Then said Paul, "I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Judeans have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
Acts 25:11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. "

 

[Albion]

I did say, at the outset, that it is NOT EASY to explain the difference - there are many academics who cannot adequately explain the fine difference, so don't knock those that try to help, please... unless you are able to give the definitive answer, of course, in which case feel free to do so, instead of stating the obvious

First, I stated much more than the obvious. It's merely the case that you chose to reprint such a tiny selection from what I wrote that you could term it "the obvious." And I did not fault you for trying, just that you were incorrect in the attempt. There's nothing wrong with setting the record straight.

I think you're being a bit too thin-skinned in this, especially since I agreed -- and said so -- with some parts of what you wrote.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

First, I stated much more than the obvious. It's merely the case that you chose to reprint such a tiny selection from what I wrote that you could term it "the obvious." And I did not fault you for trying, just that you were incorrect in the attempt. There's nothing wrong with setting the record straight.

I think you're being a bit too thin-skinned in this, especially since I agreed -- and said so -- with some parts of what you wrote.

Skin..............

Rotherham) Ezekiel 37:6 Yea I will lay upon you--sinews, And bring up over you flesh. And cover over you--skin, And put in you--spirit And ye shall live, then shall ye know that I am Yahweh.

 

[Heber]

YHVH reigns Baruch HaShem