Papal Infallibility.

DArceri · Nov 27, 2006

Question to lionroar.....

If the Pope is in direct conflict with scripture (ie. salvation), where do you put your faith?

DArceri · Nov 27, 2006

I have no standing with Bishops...I have standing with JESUS.

icedtea · Nov 27, 2006

darceri said:
Question to lionroar.....

If the Pope is in direct conflict with scripture (ie. salvation), where do you put your faith?

They could nver believe they could be in conflict. No one is going to convince the other side here.

lionroar0 · Nov 27, 2006

If the Pope is in direct conflict with scripture (ie. salvation), where do you put your faith?

Can't happen. The Pope can't contradict what has always been taught. This is one limitation of being the Pope.

Peace

icedtea · Nov 27, 2006

Theophorus · Nov 27, 2006

darceri said:
I have no standing with Bishops...I have standing with JESUS.

But Jesus wrote nothing. And the majority of the apostles wrote nothing.

So your authority is the Holy Spirit. So is the Pope's.

lionroar0 · Nov 27, 2006

I have no standing with Bishops...I have standing with JESUS.

But yet Jesus chose the Apostles and they were Bishops.

Peace

Presbyterian Continuist · Nov 27, 2006

Trento said:
[/size]

Oh so now you move it to the 10th Century
May i point out that the some of the Fathers mentioned above are Eastern Fathers but i will not get sucked into a dispute between East and West since there are talks going on now for reunification.

All this is very interesting. By using big red writing, you are using the equivalent of shouting. Usually preachers shout when they are trying to put over a weak argument.

With all your quotes, you have not been able to provide one jot of proof that Peter was actually in Rome, or that he was ever the Bishop of Rome or whether he or any of his fellow apostles referred to him as the head of the Christian church.

You may think you have beat me over the head with all your quotes from Protestant scholars, but we are still in the realm of opinion and not established fact. It may very well be my opinion that Jesus was referring to Himself as being the Rock on which the church is founded, and there are enough references in the scripture elsewhere to substantiate that.

I need to remind you that this debate is not about me, so when you resort to personal references (eg: Are you a scholar?) then I know that you are struggling for credible answers to counter my assertions.

So if you are putting your trust in some old bachelor in Rome, rather than in Jesus Christ, well then you are welcome to it.

But what will you do in God's great Day of Judgement when you realise that the office of Pope was never recognised by Jesus Christ; that when you see all those popes being marched off into Hell because they were just a part of the visible Church with its outward forms and worship, but not part of the invisible church made up of those who honour Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord?

DArceri · Nov 27, 2006

lionroar0 said:
Can't happen. The Pope can't contradict what has always been taught. This is one limitation of being the Pope.

Peace

Hmmm..... So I guess your saying Catholics believe in Faith alone (The law is not required anymore).

lionroar0 · Nov 27, 2006

See?

Yep

Peace

Presbyterian Continuist · Nov 27, 2006

lionroar0 said:
But yet Jesus chose the Apostles and they were Bishops.

Peace

Where in the New Testament does it say the Apostles were bishops?

icedtea · Nov 27, 2006

I agree with most of what you said, except sometimes preachers yell when they are enthused about the subject.

lionroar0 · Nov 27, 2006

Hmmm..... So I guess your saying Catholics believe in Faith alone (The law is not required anymore).

Nope we do not belive in faith alone. Besides faith alone doesn't really mean faith alone anyways. Faith alone doesn't mean do nothing. It does not mean just sit there and belive.

lionroar0 · Nov 27, 2006

Where in the New Testament does it say the Apostles were bishops?

Where does in the NT does Jesus say that He is of the same essence of Father and of the Holy Spirit and the three are undivided?

Where does the NT say that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God?
Peace

Theophorus · Nov 27, 2006

Oscarr said:
Where in the New Testament does it say the Apostles were bishops?

1 Timothy for starters. It was a letter from an apostle to a bishop sent to Ephesus to put things in order.

Presbyterian Continuist · Nov 27, 2006

Theophorus said:
1 Timothy for starters. It was a letter from an apostle to a bishop sent to Ephesus to put things in order.

Paul appointed Timothy as a bishop, sure, but Timothy was not an Apostle. Where abouts does it say that Timothy was an apostle?

lionroar0 · Nov 27, 2006

1 Timothy 3:1-3

1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

Overseer=Bishop.

8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

Peace

Theophorus · Nov 27, 2006

Oscarr said:
Paul appointed Timothy as a bishop, sure, but Timothy was not an Apostle. Where abouts does it say that Timothy was an apostle?

It does not say Timothy was an apostle. The sriptures say that Hands were layed on Timothy. The sriptures point out that Timothy did not fit the qualifications for being an "elder". The scriptures say Timothy had authority to set things right as well as choose others to do the same, but not lay hands on anyone hastily.

DArceri · Nov 27, 2006

lionroar0 said:
Nope we do not belive in faith alone. Besides faith alone doesn't really mean faith alone anyways. Faith alone doesn't mean do nothing. It does not mean just sit there and belive.

Peter and Paul mentioned nothing of works being required. Can you show me.

Presbyterian Continuist · Nov 27, 2006

Here is a good example of the falibility of the Pope.

The greater proportion of the RCC church believes in the Pelegan, Semi-Pelegan, and Socinian view of man's natural state before God - that mankind is not intrinsically sinful but is affected by Adam's disobedience; therefore man can be justified through being obedient to the commandments of God and through his own righteousness. Also, after becoming a Christian, a person can continue to be punished for his sins whether they be venal or mortal.

This is in direct contradiction to what Paul taught in Romans about the intrinsic depravity of mankind, that man's righteousness are as filthy rags, that no person is ever justified by the deeds of the law (or their obedience to it), and that when Jesus became our sacrifice on the cross, He paid the full price, so that we will never be punished for our sins - that Jesus took the whole punishment. That is what Paul clearly taught.

Therefore, if the Pope holds to doctrines that are contradictory to Holy Scripture, how could he ever be infallible? He is promoting unscriptural doctrine. That has to make him in constant error.

Papal Infallibility.

Exercise daily -- walk with the Lord.

Exercise daily -- walk with the Lord.

Well-Known Member

Coffee drinker

Well-Known Member

...

Coffee drinker

Senior Veteran

Exercise daily -- walk with the Lord.

Coffee drinker

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Coffee drinker

Coffee drinker

...

Senior Veteran

Coffee drinker

...

Exercise daily -- walk with the Lord.

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency