5 historical realities against an early papacy

Trying,

You fail to understand the differnece betwen prejudging the quality of a person's character and the quality of a person's arguments. I did the second where you accused me of doing the first.

Carson, to his credit, seems to see the distinction.

Unless I see an unqualified retraction I will not respond to you.

 

I think I may be beginning to understand.

You are prejudging an arguement based on the class or membership of the person making the arguement.

I'd call that a distinction without a difference.

BTW, I had always thought that Baptists took pride in being open minded.

 

I think I may be beginning to understand.

You are prejudging an arguement based on the class or membership of the person making the arguement.

I'd call that a distinction without a difference.

BTW, I had always thought that Baptists took pride in being open minded.</font>[/QUOTE]Trying,

Don't confuse opene minded with broad minded. I am the first, not the second.

As you fail to see the value of the distinction, I won't trouble you any more. I note that you do not retract your statement. That will be between you and the Lord, as there is nothing between you and I. Do not bother posting a reply; I will not respond to anything else you say.

 

Brothers! Brothers! Remember?

A lot of what I have read is the product of temperament and some of error both in Rc and Protestant inclinations. We all have our own measure of error, yet the Holy Spirit is long suffering and is kind toward us. It is all spiritually discerned and some of us will be ashamed at His Coming.

As for our long winded "windbag" brother who gave us the long lesson at the beginning I have gratefully copied and saved it for review (your deserate "justification") but I have to say that if any one believes he can justify the papacy on the basis of the Gospels he is truly to be pitied. For all that is very much subject to interpretation and not substantiated in truth. He will justify those who embody His truth. History condemns most, except the few. I thank God that in our day John Paul II (for all his faults) is a true disciple of my Lord and I love him. But as for the office? To me it is must another of man's stupid presumptions and Baptists, Pentecostals and others are just as susceptible to creating such nonesense as RC's and have no ground for condemnation. We are weak. We are stupid. We are sinful, proud and arrogant. And to add insult to injury, we don't know anything!

May the Blessed Hope which is Christ Jesus alone have mercy on us.

The Lord Bless all.

 

In Matt 16 Christ is the Rock and peter is the Pebble - but Christ adds (when addressing Peter) in that same chapter "Get thee behind me satan - you are not setting your mind on God's interests but on man's interest".

And this is the chapter used to establish Peter as Pope - who goes on to betray Christ.

In first 1Cor 10:4-5 "That Rock is Christ".

For no other foundation can be laid.

Notice that - none of that comes up in a defense of "The Popes".

EVen more interesting is the complete breakdown of Papal lines during the Great Schism - where at last the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire deposes all three ruling Popes and sets up a council that appoints a new one. No more mob-violence used to select the new Pope. No more Pope A gathering an army to kill the Catholics following Pope B.

But this does beg the question - if you had lived during the Great Schism - as a Catholic - how could you know for sure you were killing the right Catholics? How could you know that the Pope you were following might not end up being the "Wrong Pope"? (once the 3 ruling Papal lines were abolished) It was a very confusing time indeed.

In Christ,

Bob