Infallibility?

And this is why we go in circles. You can not compare apples to oranges. Baptists (1) do not claim infallibility and (2) do not mandate what other baptists must believe.

If a church mandates what you must believe and claims to be infallibile in those mandates, then they must be held accountable and be able to prove that infallibility. Sins committed and/or covered-up by those who claim infallibilty or by those who were appointed by the pope (therefore appointed by God according to your doctrine) are relevant to questioning whether or not their infallibilty did indeed come from God.

To say they are infallible in doctrine alone is merely a convenient ploy that has no basis scripturally. There is no credible reason for anyone to believe such doctrine save the fact that the church who made the doctrine states it to be true. Those of us not willing to take their word for it have no other means of testing that doctrine as the Bereans tested Pauls.

So you see, when we question the infallibility of your church leadership based off of the fact that the leaders in your church, sometimes the pope himself are committing such crimes, we are not looking for the "well they are sinners just like everyone else" excuse. We want proof that they are infallibile, some other proof then the fact that "they said so."

So here we go in circles, because irrational people who are not allowed to question the pope's infallibility must defend that stand. Turning the conversation to "see you do it too" is the ONLY argument they can make because they do not believe it based upon proof but based upon the fact that "the church said so." Never did any of the apostles claim that this would be the case. Paul showed us what church leaders must be like and to allow men who violate those standards to still claim infallibilty goes against the very word of God they claim to profess. It makes no scriptural or logical sense.

So continue to bash the KKK and we will continue to agree that the KKK is evil. In doing so we show the world that the leadership of the RCC has committed crimes just as vile as those of the KKK and therefore is not infallible.

~Lorelei

 

"Turning the conversation to "see you do it too" is the ONLY argument they can make because they do not believe it based upon proof but based upon the fact that "the church said so." "

Your simply a liar hun.

 

Oh, sorry, they apparantly also use the "liar liar pants on fire" argument too. I stand corrected. Who can argue with such solid evidence?

~Lorelei

 

Apparently you spoke too soon. The Pope has accepted his resignation.

God bless,

Grant

 

I challenge you to go to an official KKK websute. Most of them that I have seen distance themselves from church organizations saying in bold letters,

They are not a church! They are a conglomeration of people, mostly white, who had an agenda against certain groups of people during a certain era in Americas history, though they still exist to this day. To continue associate the KKK with Baptists is simply slander. Catholics have been involved in it as well, albeit more recently. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I find your statements very hypocritical. The Catholic Church has persecuted, tortured, and killed more Christians then any other relgious organization in this world, and all you can do is bring up the KKK. What a pitiful defence. A refusal to acknowledge your crimes; a refusal to deal with your own sins; a refusal to deal with your own present cover-up of sexual sins. You reach back into history and bring up the KKK, as if that will absolve you of all you of all your wicked horrible crimes, murders, tortures, and persecutions throughout the whole world. How pitiful!
DHK

 

Could you please provide us with some credible source to back this statement up because I think the Romans got us beet on this one.

 

What do you mean by Romans? I specifically said "religious organization."

 

I think it could be easily argued that the Roman Empire was a "Religious" organization. Quite a few of the Cesar’s fancied themselves as gods. The idea of separation of religion and state is a relatively new idea. I do not think it was concept in Roman times. Come to think of it I think the Muslims did a better job of persecuting Christians than the Catholic church.


God Bless

John Secker

 

"A refusal to acknowledge your crimes; a refusal to deal with your own sins; a refusal to deal with your own present cover-up of sexual sins."

My own? Now what are you accusing me of DHK.

 

No, the "you" or "your" was directed to the Catholic organization in general.
DHK

 

Why do you exempt the Baptist organization from the same standards?

Just because your system is set up to offer you a fig leaf of plausible deniability?

 

Why do you exempt the Baptist organization from the same standards?

Just because your system is set up to offer you a fig leaf of plausible deniability? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't exempt any Baptist for any crime. I believe that anyone of any religion, whoever that individual may be should be brought to justice for the crime that he has committed. Baptists that commit crimes are so dealt with, at least around here, they are.
I do not belong to any Baptist organization. I belong to an independent Baptist Church. We are not connected to any denomination, association, or convention of any kind. To hold us accountable for the actions of any other Baptist outside of our own local assembly would be akin to holding us accountable for the sins of Jimmy Swaggert, or Jimmy Bakker. We have nothing to do with them. In the Catholic organization it is different. You all are accountable by your church hierarchy. And ultimately the pope is at the head and is accountable for all. Every Catholic then, whether indirectly or directly shares in the guilt of these crimes. If you truly are a "universal" church, as you claim, then you must take the passage in 1Cor.12 literally: "where one member suffers, then all the members suffer with him."
DHK

 

Right, thats your fig leaf of plausible deniability.

 

Right, thats your fig leaf of plausible deniability. </font>[/QUOTE]Then prove me wrong, or retract your false allegations and slander.
DHK

 

You wrote, "Hooray Johnnyv! I'm glad you are back in full force to defend the great "church" that you saw fit to leave."
Correcting a point of fact. Attack if you must. But at least be accurate about the info.

See how much they love you? You are the best apologist the Roman Catholic Church has on this board.
It's not appropriate for a Baptist, or anyone else, to make accusations based on incorrect information. To do so is a biblical violation of refraining from rumor and gossip.

How much would all we Baptists love to have a Roman Catholic on this board who would constantly stand up and defend the Baptist Distinctives for us.
I have yet to see Catholics attack the Baptist disctinctives. However, I have seen several baptists have blatant disregard for a few of them.

I think all the fine work you are doing in helping us to understand all the misunderstandings and double-speak of the true church will surely shorten your stay in purgatory. You do believe in purgatory dont you?
Lookie, a bait and switch tactic. Rather than acknowlege that I was correcting a misconception, it's "well, uhh, how about THIS belief". Purgatory has nothing to do with this thread. This thread was about infallibility. If you want to discuss purgatory, start another thread.

 

"See how much they love you? You are the best apologist the Roman Catholic Church has on this board."

Actually on another board I recall several people who converted or were in the process of converting to the Catholic faith. You know who they said were the best apologists for the Catholic faith. The one's who distorted it. Imagine that. Your a great Cathoic apologist Psalm. Much better than Johnv.

Blessings

 

If the title of this thread is "infallibilty" why is the emphasis still on churches that do not claim that doctrine? Could it be because the church that does is just as fallible as the rest of them?

This argument does not explain to the rest of the world how we can believe that a man who merely "accepts the resignation" of a man who is involved with "sexual misconduct" and who left the scene of an accident in which a man was killed can claim infallibilty. Supposedly all appointments are passed down from the pope who allegedly gets his direction straight from God. So if the pope, who is appointed from God, appoints others, who appoints others. Is it is not said that these persons are all appointed by God? At what point did God pick the wrong guy? Is God now merely only infallible in doctrine?

The pope "accepted his resignation", how noble of him to allow a man involved in "sexual misconduct" and now a hit and run that took a man's life to quit. With all the powers that the pope possess, is this all he chose to do?

~Lorelei

 

"Then why do you argue with me?"

A lightbuld's light is not visible in the daylight. But when darkness surrounds it all can see it's light. Thanks for providing the darkness. As augustine notes (I won't use his politically incorrect language, if there were not opposition to the truth, we would become complacent toward it. The opposition motivates us to a deeper understanding of the truth. Thus I am in a way thankful for you.

"You also just admitted that Johnv was an apologist for the Catholic Church, although I am a better one. "

Everyone is an apologist of one sort for the Catholic Church for even error points to the truth by the discord it causes in those who hear it. That is why Satan looses in the end. Even evil God will use to the good.