Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
And my point has always been my friend (and you have yet answered) among all the different Protestant churches and sects, what authority determines who's comments agree with the bible, and who's does not. What if you and this poster disagreed on a certain bible passage, who determines who's right and who's wrong?
Again.... by what or who's authority in Protestantism determines what someone says is validated by Scripture or invalidated?
Oh.... I understand, and agree when it comes to interpreting/understanding Scripture, you have no authority over me or anyone else. And I am happy to see you agree. So...... I would suggest when you post Scripture passages and give your personal fallible opinion on said passage, you might want to add with said post that your interpretation/understanding is subject to error. Willing to do that?
You infallible? I agree. As for the Pope, Scripture disagrees with you.In St. Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus gives Peter alone “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” and the power to “bind and loose” (Matt. 16:16-20). Peter’s unique authority is powerfully exemplified in the Acts of the Apostles, at the Council of Jerusalem, when Peter made a definitive ruling regarding circumcision “and all the assembly kept silence” (Acts 15:12).
As the chief “overseer” of the Church, Peter—and his successors—was to maintain doctrinal purity, as well as doctrinal unity, in the Church. The eminent Protestant scholar James D.G. Dunn affirms this unitive role:
"It is Peter who becomes the focal point of unity for the whole Church . . . he became the most hopeful symbol of unity for that growing Christianity which more and more came to think of itself as the Church Catholic” (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, 386).
Writing in the second century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons gives important testimony to the primacy of the Pope. Dealing with the Gnostic heretics in the second century, he asserted that the beliefs of every local Christian church must be congruent, not just with apostolic tradition, but with the teachings of every other Christian church. Why? Because the Church is essentially Catholic. The primary way, wrote the ancient bishop of Lyons, that Christ ensures the unity of his Church is through the Petrine office: the church in Rome “is the greatest and most important and best-known of all . . . For with this church, because of her more powerful pre-eminence all churches must agree” (Against Heresies, III, 3.2) . (source:reasonablecatholic.com)
Really??? How do you know this? Sounds as if you are saying you have some sort of authority over "every other person." that debates with me. Or you know whats in thier hearts. Hmmmm... With all respect Maj1, I find that a very odd thing to say.
Incorrect.... I bring with me the teachings of the "Catholic Church." For the ump-tenth time, the Roman Catholic Church is one of many Rites of the Catholic Church, all which are in full communion with the Pope.
F.Y.I. Thats because I am a Catholic Christian. (converted, was a member of every Protestant church or sect at one time untill the Holy Spirit led me to Christs true Church) Again... The RCC is one of many Rites of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church has never claimed to be God!
Since we agree that NO ONE is infallible, including the POPE and the RCC, why then do you think that only RCC interpretations of Scripture is the correct one???
Your ongoing argument is that Protest churches have no authority to define Scriptures except the RCC.
Do you not understand that all Christian denominations have a higharchey of individuals or a Presbytery or council of individuals who over the years have established what they interpret the Scriptures to mean JUST AS DID THE RCC?????
Your argument therefore does not exist!!!!!
That is the reason for the Reformation. The RCC interpreted Scriptures in error and added many doctrines which were not in the Bible at all.
Upvote
0