This Seems Big.

Water in a cesspool is "just fine?"

I don't even want to be near a cesspool, much less try to keep my head above the filth!

 

Better then self-proclaimed POPE CURTIS. Who literally will read a sentence of GOD's holy word and believe a satanic backwards:

James 2

24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.



Or do you like satan's backward version?


24You see that a man is justified by Faith Alone and not by works.



See the TRUTH is the TRUTH and your LIES are only LIES.

 

Their can ONLY be certain ways to understanding the essentials of Christian though, as there can only be the truth that Jesus alone saves, Cross is only place salvation came from, Trinity, saved by grace alone Faith alone, things like that are only one way to be seen!
So we can with absolute certainty claim those essentials as truth!

 

The point though is that when the doctrines of Rome are contrery to those of scripture, the Popes have been wrong!

 

The true church of jesus though was establish WAY before there was ever the church of Rome though, as the canon of scripture was already being recognized and used as authorities within local churches by end of first century, early 2nd. The Church merely recognized what the churches for long time already had seen as being the scriptures from God. the Church is founded upon jesus and the scriptures alone, not papacy or Rome!

 

And paul as Pope to the Gentiles!

 

You still don't understand what papal infallibility means. An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics. Most Protestants (yes, despite your claim to the contrary, you ARE a Protestant) believe that infallibility means the pope can never err or sin. This is not the case. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study.

Pope Joan? This has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. A google search will give you more info than you have time to read. Take those blinders off and actually learn what the Catholic Church really teaches. I was a Baptist for a long time and believed The Trail of Blood was accurate. Read for yourself a different viewpoint from what we were taught: http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/TrailOfBlood.pdf

However, as far as your misunderstanding of papal infallibility, often those who object to the doctrine of infallibility confuse it with impeccability or personal inerrancy. It is neither. Impeccability means that a person is incapable of sinning. Popes, like other Christians, are sinners. Personal inerrancy means that Popes cannot make mistakes. Infallibility, on the other hand, refers on to that guidance of the Holy Spirit that guards Popes from officially teaching error in matters of faith and morals. The foundational elements of the doctrine embody the following points. First, Jesus established Peter in a dynastic office as head of the apostles and empowered him with his authority in deciding matters of faith and morals. Secondly, Jesus intended that this office and authority be passed on to Peter's successors. Matthew 16:16-19

 

It amazes me that those who claim Peter was infallible fail to often remember Paul rebuked Peter before the whole assembly.

Well so much for the "head" being without sinfulness.

There is only ONE mediator between God and man, and that ONE mediator is the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does one debunk John XII being killed for adultery? It is difficult to tell which apostates are infallible.

Bottom line: Christ has no vicar. Jesus is the Vicar. This is done through the Holy Spirit. Jesus know a man cannot handle it.

If you were a real Baptist, you would still be a real baptist.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

And who determines what those essentials are? You? Me?

 

And what are the 'doctrines of Scripture'? And how have you determined what they are?

 

Obviously, it is a discussion of dealing with heretical doctrines and was written in that context--so you do need to keep your head above water. What are you thinking?

 

That has never been the issue so you have a straw man. I have merely said that attributing false statements to Roman Catholic dogma is a type of lie and is poor debate tactics. I have denounced Roman Catholic doctrine as a cesspool and I have denounced countless times Pope Francis as a Peronist and a believer in communistic Liberation Theology and on other threads I have noted that in Latin America, Pope Francis is called Papa Che for his open friendships with repressive dictators such as Raul Castro, Nicolas Maduro, Evo Morales and Cristina Kirchner.

 

No, the Lord in His bible!

 

They are the doctrines given to us by the Holy Spirit thru the scriptures.

 

You are saying that the various doctrines pronounced by the papacy over history are true?

 

No, I am not saying anything except that what Pope Francis was criticized for was not said ex cathedra and therefore was not an infallible statement by him. I have repeated this several times and I have invited everyone concerned to look at actual Roman Catholic rules about what is infallible. Check out this link:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility

 

How?

 

Which ones? Calvinism or Arminianism? Covenant or dispensationalist? Cessationist or charismatic? Episcopal, Presbyterian or congregational church government?

 

Ex cathedral and infallibility are meaningless if there is no Vicar of Christ. The pivotal scripture is Mt. 16:18. Jesus either makes Peter pope or He does not. The papacy stands or falls here. If Peter is pope, anyone outside the Holy See is apostate, They are usurping authority. Rome gives authority to no one outside her jurisdiction. See Council of Trent. If Peter is not Vicar of Christ, Rome is apostate and without authority--a usurper. This would include her daughters. They could take no authority from her--she has none to take. This notion would get you burned at the stake 500 years ago. Millions have died refusing to bow to the authority of Rome. We are still out here.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James