What other denominations

[Lamb's Servant]

Because it is OBVIOUSLY figurative. Simple language skills show this. A man is not bread. Bread is IMAGERY.

His listeners did not take Him as speaking figuratively and He did not correct their misunderstanding.

 

[Lamb's Servant]

So which one is more authoritative when the two are at odds, the scripture or the pope?

Church belief and Scripture can never contradict since the Scripture reflects Church belief. Now, the Pope can have his own opinions about what the Scripture says but, if he willfully goes against Scripture as reflected in Church Tradition, then he would be wrong.

 

[Reformed1689]

His listeners did not take Him as speaking figuratively and He did not correct their misunderstanding.

Except he said "not like the bread the fathers ate".... minor detail...

 

[Lamb's Servant]

Except he said "not like the bread the fathers ate".... minor detail...

That's because He was going to give them/us His very Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Why is your interpretation of scripture right and the Mennonites interpretation of scripture wrong. You dudes are reading the same bible?

I thought the whole “ Bible alone “ idea you share meant all you needed was to pick up the Bible and interpret it yourself and you would have all the truth you needed. In fact dudes are telling me the Bible interprets Itself.

If the Bible interprets itself, What’s gone seriously, seriously wrong here.

Do Mennonites even have Bibles? Dude, let me assure you, Mennonites have Bibles, I checked, it’s true.

Are Mennonites just stupid? No, there were two Mennonite theology professors I spoke with that knew the Bible back to front. Sounded highly intelligent and I learned a lot.

Do Mennonites Love Jesus? Yep, don’t even go there.

Do Mennonites say they rely on The Holy Spirit to understand the scripture? Definitely, just like every other Bible alone Church I’ve come across.

So why don’t you consider them “ biblical Christianity “?

Mennonites have an incredibly liberal theology by and large, as well as having works-based salvation, not all that dissimilar to your religion. Ask me how I know.

 

[Reformed1689]

That's because He was going to give them/us His very Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

hogwash

 

[Cathode]

Mennonites have an incredibly liberal theology by and large, as well as having works-based salvation, not all that dissimilar to your religion. Ask me how I know.

Mennonites aren’t monolithic. I’ve spoken to Baptist’s that were hugely liberal, Ive forgotten the name of the forum now.

My point being anyway, that the “ Bible alone “ idea and the “ Bible interprets itself “ doesn’t work when you look at all the conflicting interpretations and doctrines among all the Bible Aloners.

Amidst all that confusion, they ask us why we need an Infallible Authority to determine Scriptures interpretation. For us it’s manifestly obvious, it’s a big hairy mammoth in the room.

 

[Reformed1689]

Amidst all that confusion, they ask us why we need an Infallible Authority to determine Scriptures interpretation. For us it’s manifestly obvious, it’s a big hairy mammoth in the room.

Yet popes contradict themselves. So much for papal infallibility. Catholic hogwash.

 

[Cathode]

Yet popes contradict themselves. So much for papal infallibility. Catholic hogwash.

Well how do you know your interpretations and doctrines from scripture are the truth, compared to other Bible alone churches that teach differently to your interpretations.

I assumed that you believed all you need is the Bible, but it seems it is proven more and more that people need something else.

If the Bible alone idea is true, shouldn’t everyone be Lutherans?

The reformation was built on the central idea of “ scripture alone “, hang the papists, interpret for yourself. Luther said to give every ploughboy a Bible, and it seemed many ploughed themselves straight off a cliff. Bible aloners each accusing the other of not being biblical. I don’t understand it.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

All the gift of Infallibility means is the Pope gets struck dead if he tries to teach error. It’s a gift to the Church, not the one sitting in the Chair of Peter.

Well, I'd say your pope has more than disproved that doctrine. Aside from the fact that that is not an accurate description of your religion's teaching on that matter.
Peter himself was fallible, aligning himself with the Judaizers in Galatians (due to fear of man), and Paul rebuked him for it. Neither did Peter set up a successor to himself, his duty was to help lay the foundation of the Church, which he accomplished. Peter rebuked Cornelius for bowing down to him in Acts 10, stating that he too was just a man.

“He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,”

Even though caiaphas was a nasty fellow, God still operated through him in the Chair of Moses.

God uses wicked men to accomplish His will, but I'm not really sure why you are equivocating Caiaphas's plot to murder Jesus in a private meeting, to the seat of Moses. Nor do I understand how that has anything to do with papal infallibility.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Mennonites aren’t monolithic. I’ve spoken to Baptist’s that were hugely liberal, Ive forgotten the name of the forum now.

My point being anyway, that the “ Bible alone “ idea and the “ Bible interprets itself “ doesn’t work when you look at all the conflicting interpretations and doctrines among all the Bible Aloners.

Amidst all that confusion, they ask us why we need an Infallible Authority to determine Scriptures interpretation. For us it’s manifestly obvious, it’s a big hairy mammoth in the room.

The bible is all you need, along with qualified teachers, yet these are also to be measured by the bible. The NT calls us to watch out for false teachers by... testing the spirits, rightly dividing the word. Doctrines of man will always be forced into scriptures (your religion is a wonderful example), which is why we study the word, as God advocates strongly throughout the scripture to do.

You don't have infallible authority. Your religion prays to angels and saints. God commanded the death penalty in the OT for prayers offered to the dead. We have one intercessor Christ Jesus - and I figured that out by going to the word itself.

 

[Cathode]

Well, I'd say your pope has more than disproved that doctrine. Aside from the fact that that is not an accurate description of your religion's teaching on that matter.
Peter himself was fallible, aligning himself with the Judaizers in Galatians (due to fear of man), and Paul rebuked him for it. Neither did Peter set up a successor to himself, his duty was to help lay the foundation of the Church, which he accomplished. Peter rebuked Cornelius for bowing down to him in Acts 10, stating that he too was just a man.

Paul simply was holding Peter to Peters own teaching, that God showed no partiality between Jew and gentile believers. So Peters teaching was correct, but his behaviour did show partially. Separating himself to be with the Jewish believers.
“As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.”

Hypocrisy is teaching one thing, but behaving the opposite.

So Peter taught infallibly but behaved badly.

The Pope is just a man, but the Office of The Chair of Peter is like that of The Chair of Moses.

“Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’

God uses wicked men to accomplish His will, but I'm not really sure why you are equivocating Caiaphas's plot to murder Jesus in a private meeting, to the seat of Moses. Nor do I understand how that has anything to do with papal infallibility.

The High Priest did occupy the Chair of Moses, received Infallible guidance from God for all Israel.

 

[Reformed1689]

The reformation was built on the central idea of “ scripture alone “, hang the papists, interpret for yourself. Luther said to give every ploughboy a Bible, and it seemed many ploughed themselves straight off a cliff. Bible aloners each accusing the other of not being biblical. I don’t understand it.

On the essentials there is little to no disagreement. I would rather have disagreements than have a pope lead everyone to the gates of hell.

 

[Cathode]

On the essentials there is little to no disagreement. I would rather have disagreements than have a pope lead everyone to the gates of hell.

Baptism is a big essential disagreed on as salvific. And infant baptism either costing countless millions of souls.
No final arbiter of Scriptures meaning means countless souls lost. The Bible aloners could use an infallibly guided Pope right about now.

So it’s just opinion vs opinion and never finding the truth, as millions are lost.

 

[Reformed1689]

Baptism is a big essential disagreed on as salvific. And infant baptism either costing countless millions of souls.
No final arbiter of Scriptures meaning means countless souls lost. The Bible aloners could use an infallibly guided Pope right about now.

So it’s just opinion vs opinion and never finding the truth, as millions are lost.

Except popes are not infallible. They are arrogant control freaks who couldn't care less about Scripture.

 

[Reformed1689]

And infant baptism either costing countless millions of souls.

No infant baptism found or commanded in the Bible. Get over it.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Baptism is a big essential disagreed on as salvific. And infant baptism either costing countless millions of souls.
No final arbiter of Scriptures meaning means countless souls lost. The Bible aloners could use an infallibly guided Pope right about now.

So it’s just opinion vs opinion and never finding the truth, as millions are lost.

Infallible, like the pope endorsing homosexual unions and calling gays "children of God."

 

[Cathode]

Except popes are not infallible. They are arrogant control freaks who couldn't care less about Scripture.

It doesn’t solve the problem though dude. Which side is true, you need Infallible interpretations to get the truth out of scripture.

 

[Reformed1689]

It doesn’t solve the problem though dude. Which side is true, you need Infallible interpretations to get the truth out of scripture.

No human, especially your precious pope, is infallible.

 

[Cathode]

Infallible, like the pope endorsing homosexual unions and calling gays "children of God."

Nothings changed in the Catholic Catechism, So offical Church teaching remains the same.
Only Ex Cathedra statements matter.