Credibility without Accountability?

[Acts 1:8]

For our audience I present the following:

In light of other scripture,

Romans 7
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.


I propose to you that when John taught

"No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."

he was not speaking of "sinless perfection", but rather he was speaking of the habitual practice of known sinful acts.

As a sidenote Christ himself taught us to "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Here I believe he was teaching us to be complete in love like his Fathers Love.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by AdoptedByGod:
he was not speaking of "sinless perfection", but rather he was speaking of the habitual practice of known sinful acts.

Baptist double speak.

Answer the question.

Do you sin?

 

[Lorelei]

tryingtounderstand,

You spent your first two posts here doing nothing but putting me down. Now you finally join the discussion simply to change the subject.

Please start another thread if you are honestly trying to understand Baptist doctrine.

Otherwise, all you have proven is that you can't defend the church, so you are yet again trying to discuss what Baptists do. That is irrelevant to whether or not the Catholic church can prove their credibility.

~Lorelei

 

[Acts 1:8]

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Unfortunately, you and I both sin, but thanks be to God all sin (past present and future) has been atoned for.

"Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself." Hebrews 7:27

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
tryingtounderstand,

You spent your first two posts here doing nothing but putting me down. Now you finally join the discussion simply to change the subject.

Please start another thread if you are honestly trying to understand Baptist doctrine.

Otherwise, all you have proven is that you can't defend the church, so you are yet again trying to discuss what Baptists do. That is irrelevant to whether or not the Catholic church can prove their credibility.

~Lorelei

No, I'm making a point.

Go back a few posts.

I am offering an example.

1. First twist the doctrine of the other.

2. Then demand relentlessly that the other defend that distortion.

3. Ignore all responses and continue to demand a defense.

Go back and read it all the way through the last of this thread.

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
No, I'm making a point.

No, you are proving mine. You say that "Unless we understand", but what you mean is unless we agree.

You refuse to keep the focus on catholic doctrine when it's called into question. You can not nor have you defended it yet. You simply point fingers the other way.

~Lorelei

 

[JFS]

["This is exactly my point. You can only understand infallibility if you know how the catholic church defines it. It's not what things mean, it's what the church "teaches" about what things really mean. You just supported my point yet again"]

So you would rather the RCC use different terminolgy to explain their doctrines? It seems to me that you have a problem with the words we use. Can you suggest how we can get around this? Can you help us to help you to better understand?

God Bless You

Yours truly in Christ,

John

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
No, you are proving mine. You say that "Unless we understand", but what you mean is unless we agree.

You refuse to keep the focus on catholic doctrine when it's called into question. You can not nor have you defended it yet. You simply point fingers the other way.

~Lorelei [/QB]

Unerstand - not agree.

Lets talk about "pridfikl".

Oh, you don't understand what I mean by that word?

Then how can we discuss it?

If you are to be consistent with your past approach, you will come up with something that you claim that "pridfikl" means and then expect me to discuss it with you as though you know what "pridfikl" means even though you do not.

But I get the feeling that my point is passing right by you unnoticed.

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by JFS:
So you would rather the RCC use different terminolgy to explain their doctrines?

Only if the terminology they use isn't really what they mean. Otherwise the appropriate term is deception.

~Lorelei

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
You refuse to keep the focus on catholic doctrine when it's called into question. You can not nor have you defended it yet. You simply point fingers the other way.

~Lorelei

In order to discuss "infallibilty" as it applies to the Church, you must understand what the Church means by that word as it applies it to itself.

For you to come up with your own definition makes any discussion pointless and fruitless.

Do you understand my point?

Do you agree with what I am saying?

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
But I get the feeling that my point is passing right by you unnoticed.

Evidentally mine never got through to you, but after all, according to you, "it was too disjointed to make any sense of it."

~Lorelei

 

[JFS]

["Only if the terminology they use isn't really what they mean. Otherwise the appropriate term is deception."]

What if the terminology was correct when the doctrine was proclamed? Maybe it is the meaning of the word Infalable that has changed over time. Should we change it to suit you?

God bless you

Yours truly in Christ,

John

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:

Only if the terminology they use isn't really what they mean. Otherwise the appropriate term is deception.

~Lorelei [/QB]

Your profile says you are a "housewife".

When did you marry your house and can you show me Scriptural support for marrying a house?

This is the same sort of nonsense in which you are engaging.

When you wrote "housewife" you had a specific meaning in mind. Since you chose the word, would it be better to discuss it based on your meaning, or one which I make up?

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
In discussing anything with catholics it always falls back to what their church teaches and we can never prove them wrong because they hold themselves accountable to no one, not even God.

The catholic church proclaims to be THE church of Christ. They have no proof.

The catholic church proclaims to be infallible in doctrine. They have no proof.

The catholic church proclaims to be proclaiming the gospel. They have no proof.

The catholic church proclaims to believe the Bible is the Word of God and that they hold it infallible and teach it's doctrine. They have no proof.

The only proof they can ever offer is the fact that they "said" so.

Do all their teachings line up with what God's Word says? No

But according to the Council of Trent

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decress that no one relying on his own judgement shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which the mother church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teachings of the Fathers

So we can't disprove your doctrine unscriptural, because to you, your interpretation is right, and therefore can't be questioned. Because your church "said so".

The circular reasoning leaves no room for discussion outside of your circle. We can't discuss scripture because you can only discuss it within the realm that the catholic church defines it.

It just amazes me that catholics don't realize that they are believing in what man tells them, not God, because they can't hold those men accountable to God's word because they claim to be the only ones able to interpret what it "really" means.

~Lorelei

 

[thessalonian]

Tryingtoudnerstand,

Do you get the feeling that we're just not getting anywhere here. Gee, scientists make up new terminology and define things with words that already have preset meanings all the time. But when the Catholic Church does it they are being "decpetive" even though if you look in the documents of the councils, catcectical instruction books, and the catechism it is clear what we mean when the term infallibility is used. Nothing is hidden in the Catholic Church as far as what she teaches.

Blessings.

PS. Lorelei, you are not a rational person so I won't be wasting my time with you again. Blessings though.

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
PS. Lorelei, you are not a rational person so I won't be wasting my time with you again. Blessings though.

Again, thanks for proving my point. Can't argue with that so let's call her names. That is really rational behavior.

~Lorelei

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
So we can't disprove your doctrine unscriptural, because to you, your interpretation is right, and therefore can't be questioned. Because your church "said so".

This isn't much different than I think that you believe.

I cannot prove your doctrine to be unscriptural becasue to you your interpretation is correct because the Holy Spirit tells you so. Yes?

Of course that leaves the uncomfortable matter of such disagreement between so many all being led by the same Holy Spirit.

The circular reasoning leaves no room for discussion outside of your circle. We can't discuss scripture because you can only discuss it within the realm that the catholic church defines it.

I don't know how you come to this conclusion. You are not bound by the Council of Trent are you?

The point that so many have been trying to make is that you cannot discuss a belief of another unless you first make at least some minimal attempt to understand what it is that the other believes.

It just amazes me that catholics don't realize that they are believing in what man tells them, not God, because they can't hold those men accountable to God's word because they claim to be the only ones able to interpret what it "really" means.

No not a man, but the Church which the Lord provided to us.

Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

You choose to place your trust in yourself. I know that you will say you don't; that you trust in the Bible, but by setting yourself up as the final interpreter of Scripture you are in fact relying on yourself.

 

[Lorelei]

the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals

Does the church teach this or not?

~Lorelei

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals

Does the church teach this or not?

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]Here is what the catechism of the Catholic Church in part teaches on the matter.


"890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
I cannot prove your doctrine to be unscriptural becasue to you your interpretation is correct because the Holy Spirit tells you so. Yes?

There are ways to determine if it is the Holy Spirit that is telling you so. The Holy Spirit won't lead you to believe something contrary to what is already written in His Word. Any doctrine I hold that isn't scriptural can be proven wrong.

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Of course that leaves the uncomfortable matter of such disagreement between so many all being led by the same Holy Spirit.

Therefore we shouldn't assume that everyone professing to have the Spirit automatically has it. We should do as the word says and test the spirits.

Originally posted by trying2understand:
I don't know how you come to this conclusion. You are not bound by the Council of Trent are you?

No, but anyone who is can't listen to me. According to it, if I say anything outside of what the church said I am automatically "distorting" the scritptures, based upon their statement alone, not contexual proof.

Originally posted by trying2understand:
The point that so many have been trying to make is that you cannot discuss a belief of another unless you first make at least some minimal attempt to understand what it is that the other believes.

I have, you just don't believe it because I still don't see it your way.

Originally posted by trying2understand:
]No not a man, but the Church which the Lord provided to us. Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

The "church" as defined by your church leaders, who were all men.

Originally posted by trying2understand:
You choose to place your trust in yourself. I know that you will say you don't; that you trust in the Bible, but by setting yourself up as the final interpreter of Scripture you are in fact relying on yourself.

No, I am relying upon God. But when I do misunderstand and don't let the Spirit teach me or get caught up in every wind of doctrine, I can be easily corrected because there is a standard of accountability left to us by God and that is His Word.

We are often warned of false prophets and doctrines in the Bible. We can't know how to recognize with them without having some criteria to hold their doctrines up against. That criteria has to come from outside the place you are questioning. For if the Bible teaches us to watch for false teachers, why doesn't the church let us hold them accountable to God's Word to see if they are one?

According to the quote, I can't question doctrine outside of their own interpretation of it.

~Lorelei