• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

This Seems Big.

Status
Not open for further replies.

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
And the Church! Remember, the Scriptures were not around as we know them for some 300 years. The leaders of the new Christian church were speaking to the other Christians around the world as evidenced by the letters Paul was writing to them. They were controlling from a central authority.

A book was not written and then sent out around the world so the other Christians could then decide things for themselves as you now do. There was a CHURCH, and it's pronouncements were infallible!

No, even the mainstream William F. Albright, archeologist, said that evangelicals and fundamentalists were correct in dating the New Testament to 60 AD or so.
 

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Can he cast doubt on any other sacred doctrine as long as he's not speaking ex cathedra ? Can he doubt the virgin birth ?

He should not, but he COULD.

And this would not have any bearing as the deposit of faith, catholic doctrine has not nor cannot be changed.

You can read about Popes who have been completely evil.

I just recently read about one who cheated with some guy's wife and was beaten to death. --->

Pope John XII - Wikipedia
 

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, even the mainstream William F. Albright, archeologist, said that evangelicals and fundamentalists were correct in dating the New Testament to 60 AD or so.

I bet I can be more correct dating it between 0-33 ad. :p

What you need is book 67 that says which are the valid 66 books.

And then find that elusive 31,103th bible verse that states the bible is the sole, only, final rule of authority.
(i googled the number)
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
He should not, but he COULD.

And this would not have any bearing as the deposit of faith, catholic doctrine has not nor cannot be changed.

You can read about Popes who have been completely evil.

I just recently read about one who cheated with some guy's wife and was beaten to death. --->

Pope John XII - Wikipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The vicar of Christ beaten to death for adultery. And what happened to the wife? The husband? Maybe John XII was not officially ex cathedral. See also Pope Joan, mistress of John XII.

This is another pathetic example of His Emanence not feeding the lambs. See Alexander VI and the Borgias.

They must have been antipopes. How is there a continuity in the Bishopric of Peter with all the antipopes in the lineup?

"Come out from among them, saith The Lord, touch not the unclean thing."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
 
Last edited:

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The vicar of Christ beaten to death for adultery. And what happened to the wife? The husband? Maybe John XII was not officially ex cathedral. See also Pope Joan, mistress of John XII.

This is another pathetic example of His Emanence not feeding the lambs. See Alexander VI and the Borgias.

They must have been antipopes. How is there a continuity in the Bishopric of Peter with all the antipopes in the lineup.

"Come out from among them, saith The Lord, touch not the unclean thing."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James


That ain't nothing brother. At one time a church leader not only in adultery but he had the husband killed by throwing him in the front lines of battle.

Maybe Donatism is more your style? Donatism - Wikipedia
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That ain't nothing brother. At one time a church leader not only in adultery but he had the husband killed by throwing him in the front lines of battle.

Maybe Donatism is more your style? Donatism - Wikipedia
That ain't nothing brother. At one time a church leader not only in adultery but he had the husband killed by throwing him in the front lines of battle.

Maybe Donatism is more your style? Donatism - Wikipedia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More proof of the depravity of man--that includes you and me. Are you going to get to heaven Brother? How?

See Ephesians 2:8-10.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
He should not, but he COULD.

And this would not have any bearing as the deposit of faith, catholic doctrine has not nor cannot be changed.

You can read about Popes who have been completely evil.

I just recently read about one who cheated with some guy's wife and was beaten to death. --->

Pope John XII - Wikipedia


You have misled about ex cathedra a bit. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Says nothing about ex cathedra in the statement.

Second, a house divided cannot stand. The idea of a pope speaking against the very doctrine he's sworn to uphold, yet being relied upon to dispense it without error is preposterous. Laughable.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Can he cast doubt on any other sacred doctrine as long as he's not speaking ex cathedra ? Can he doubt the virgin birth ?
In theory, yes. He'd be slapped down and very possibly deposed by his fellow-bishops in short order if he did so publicly , but he's capable of having the same doubts and struggles about his faith as the rest of us.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, even the mainstream William F. Albright, archeologist, said that evangelicals and fundamentalists were correct in dating the New Testament to 60 AD or so.
Apart from Revelation which dates to the 90s. And that still doesn't help us know which texts were treated as NT and which were not. What were circulating in the 100sAD were the equivalent of some of the works of Shakespeare and some of the works of Marlowe, Bacon and Spenser without the authors' names on the works, whereas we have the complete works of Shakespeare and know who wrote what. It took the Church in the 4th century (after Constantine!) to accurately sift the wheat from the chaff there.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You have misled about ex cathedra a bit. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Says nothing about ex cathedra in the statement.

Second, a house divided cannot stand. The idea of a pope speaking against the very doctrine he's sworn to uphold, yet being relied upon to dispense it without error is preposterous. Laughable.
And yet the Baptists seem to have rubbed along fairly ok with that problem for the last 400 years; you know the old joke - "ask two Baptists a question about doctrine and you'll get three different answers."
 

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You have misled about ex cathedra a bit. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Says nothing about ex cathedra in the statement.

Second, a house divided cannot stand. The idea of a pope speaking against the very doctrine he's sworn to uphold, yet being relied upon to dispense it without error is preposterous. Laughable.

Laughable, like your reading comprehension?

You can insist a lie to be true till your blue in the face, its still a lie.

I understand why you don't want to debate something we actually believe, because there wouldn't be anything wrong with it.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You have misled about ex cathedra a bit. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Says nothing about ex cathedra in the statement.

Second, a house divided cannot stand. The idea of a pope speaking against the very doctrine he's sworn to uphold, yet being relied upon to dispense it without error is preposterous. Laughable.

It would help a great deal if you would quote from New Advent exactly what you mean. I do not read anything about papal infallibility except when a statement is ex cathedra.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
And yet the Baptists seem to have rubbed along fairly ok with that problem for the last 400 years; you know the old joke - "ask two Baptists a question about doctrine and you'll get three different answers."
Baptists don't claim infallibility.
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."[1][2]
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Laughable, like your reading comprehension?

You can insist a lie to be true till your blue in the face, its still a lie.

I understand why you don't want to debate something we actually believe, because there wouldn't be anything wrong with it.
There's nothing to debate. You revere a man who can literally speak out of both sides of his mouth.

He's infallible, until he's not. My original observation.
 

Red.Letter

New Member
he is the Vicar of Christ, so to Rome, when he speaks on issues of doctrines, just like Jesus Himself was talking!

Well, there is not just one church (assembly) ref e.g., 7 churches in Rev, there are many assemblies, Peter may have been the head of the assembly in Rome, at least until he died. If only one apostle is supposed to be in charge for all time, I would vote (if I have a vote in this) for James (Jacob) as head of the Assembly in Jerusalem or second, John as head of the Assembly in Ephesus; Peter (Shimon) would come in third I suppose.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."[1][2]

I know that that is what you have been saying although you do not give your source. That is not what Roman Catholicism teaches, to be fair to them. It would help if you could find your statement replicated from actual dogma listed by the link here:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oh i see, the real truth didn't come about until the KJV was invented? Yeah, right. Luther had to change the Bible to conform to his new ideas of what the scriptures really meant to tell us - that's it in a nutshell.

Rather than post a lengthy tomb in which much would be ignored, anyway, I would merely suggest you take a single rather short book and read to compare. That way at least you would have direct understanding of why you hold your view and not rely merely upon what others say your view should be.

For example: The centuries taught view, that only the church can interpret the Bible.(Documentation of this teaching). Would it not be in your best interest to actually see for your self? That you have such authority and ability?

Because of the length, and because of the ease of reading, I suggest the wonderful book of John.

It starts out with "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God...".

I'm not asking you to interpret the book, I am merely suggesting that you actually find factual and specific disagreement between three translations; the Catholic authorized bible, that you can find here, the NASB (which admittedly I like) and the NIV (which many Catholics and protestants use). Both these online versions can be found here.

I'm not looking for an argument, I've done the work, but I am looking for your edification.

There may certainly be great disagreement on what church is the true church, but ultimately, if indeed the Word was in the beginning, it was with God, and was God, as all three Bibles state, then it is most Certain that the beginning of any truth must be found in the Word.

I trust your integrity will not allow neglect of this simple request. It is not unlawful and is meant merely to help.
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
I know that that is what you have been saying although you do not give your source. That is not what Roman Catholicism teaches, to be fair to them. It would help if you could find your statement replicated from actual dogma listed by the link here:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility
It's because I find the notion of papal infallibility ridiculous. I don't believe in it. So to hear any caveats placed on it makes it even more absurd.

I've never heard of any preacher saying one to a congregation and another thing in a radio interview. Or a newspaper. In any church I know, dude would be out of a job. Or at least reprimanded by his very congregation.

I stand by my assertion that this is huge news.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's because I find the notion of papal infallibility ridiculous. I don't believe in it. So to hear any caveats placed on it makes it even more absurd.

I've never heard of any preacher saying one to a congregation and another thing in a radio interview. Or a newspaper. In any church I know, dude would be out of a job. Or at least reprimanded by his very congregation.

I stand by my assertion that this is huge news.

The problem with swimming in a cesspool is that one has to keep one's head above water. Other than that, come on in the water is fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top