Credibility without Accountability?

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.

 

Baptist double speak.

Answer the question.

Do you sin?

 

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

 

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.

 

["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

 

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.

 

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?

 

["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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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."