Christian Forums

James - could you help me with this:

QuoteQuote
I understand this passage to be dealing more with the reason for Christ's coming, than being a definitive statement on Paul's current mindset about his own current sinfulness. Paul deals more with the aforementioned latter aspect in Romans chapter 7. Even so, while Paul sees his sinfulness, he also sees a difference between being a sinner, and continuing in sin (cf. Romans 6:1).

Whether the passage is intended to deal with the reason for Christ's coming, it is still a definitive statement on Paul's belief that he is still 'worst of sinners'.

The worst of sinners whom Christ came into the world to save. Such a reading, which is proper, does not make the statement definitive.

I'm assuming 'definitive ' means 'specifiy definitely', and Paul definitely says that he IS the worst of sinners.

How is that arguable?  Was Paul was mistaken?

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 14:37:54

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:41:24
Oops, one more thing:

James, you said -

QuoteEven so, he also wrote against the notion of continuing in sin, which I believe was the point in the OP.

The point of the OP was that the Pope can't be infallible in teaching doctrine because he is not sinless.

Kensington was pretty clear about that.

No, what I said was he could not be possibly be infallible when speaking to matters of "SIN" when he himself is involved in sin, which brings up the point you made about Paul, Paul was a great sinner... His sins were great, and many. Thus making him as big a sinner as there was one, but that was before he was saved. Afterward, He was not openly walking in those same sins or more sins of immorality (such as Popes have) while teaching doctrine. God did not go to all the trouble to blind him and set him up as the foremost authority on bibilical teaching of the day so that he would have had mistress's or participated in plots to murder anyone.

That was my point. None of the Apostle's that JESUS appointed went about participating in open rebellion of sin and hypocrisy and teaching the word and "doctrine on morals" to the church.

Paul called himself "chief among sinners" who were saved by grace. He was speaking to his sins being worse and now he is saved. He was not saying, he was still participating in the sins that got him that "chief" sinner title. There is a difference.  You would have to believe that Paul continued to hunt and kill Christians or had sexual sins to believe he remained the same sinner that he was before, after he was saved. He did not, he walked in grace. And said so... He spoke to the unmarried, that they should if they could remain as he... but if they could not ( and Popes evidently can't) then rather than burn, they should marry. 

And I said and maintain that the claim that Jesus passed His infallibility to the Pope cannot be possible for Christ infallibilty comes with impeccability as He was sinless in all matters, and if God was passing that on, the pope would have it. 

My point to is that if you read the word of God, you will find that no man, not even Paul or Peter or John, claimed for themselves to be infallible. They claimed to be relying on God alone.  But, when receiving and giving divine revelation as it says the Pope does, I believe God would call them to live impeccable amoung men as even John did on the isle of Patmos.

Saying that "ALL SIN" is not justified in this case. For we know that there are those who can and do walk more honorably than others.  Able did it. Abraham did, Jabez was more honorable than his brothers. John, James, Paul, Timothy... none were caught in scandals of immorality while teaching the inspired word of God concerning morals.

And as I said... that is the VERY deffinition of Hypocrite.  To tell someone else, it is a sin, to stop it, while participating in the same sin. Thus, any Pope who EVER had sexual sins, and sins of murder, or theft, and debauchery while giving doctrine was NOT infallible. Nor could they have been.

Yes, God can keep the people from being deceived when hypocrisy is taught, but that is not the Pope or the teacher being infallible, that is GOD being infallible. And we know that He is also impeccable in His life.

I believe I see your point, Kensington, yet Paul his ownself says, in 1 Timothy, that he (Paul) IS (present tense!) the worst of sinners.

Do you believe Paul was mistaken in this?

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 14:33:31

QuoteQuote from: kmv on Today at 01:04:05 PM
None of us would deny that we are not to continue in sin.

I'm not saying that you would, but I can't say the same for others on this forum.

Could you reference such a post?  I can't say that I recall seeing any such opinion.

That is because you have not been much involved with discussions such as these on this forum. As far as referencing such, I could dig through the plethora of posts, but honestly, I don't have the time right now. Even so, there are a few posters on this forum who believe in, and promote the idea that grace is equivalent to license, and that the believer not only can, but will "continue in sin".

KMV, Let me ask you... do you believe that Paul continued on hunting and killing Christians after being saved?  He being the chief sinner, saved by grace?  Or do you think he was speaking in humble admittance that his sins, that ARE covered by grace were of the worst kind?

No... Constantine, no man of God on the protestant side who would be teaching from the pulpit and having a mistress or participating in murder would be infallible. We do not believe that any preacher is infallible when teaching the word. They open their mouths, they make mistakes. And certainly I ... personally, would question EVERY teaching I had heard from a man who was found in moral sin.

I can list names.. but I won't. I'll say... we all know that there have been men... their testimony is sin filled, and their teachings are flawed, doubted and even rejected once they are found out. I'm no blind mouse.

And we also know that men of God, have erred when teaching the word.  Even when walking closely with God, listening to His Spirit and staying close in study of the word. 

And that is how I know that the Pope is no different. For the WORD does not say that God will lead only "ONE MAN" in all truth. THe word says He will lead "ALL OF US" into truth.

But, I believe for that to happen, we must be living what we are talking. Not lying as the hypocrite does, God separated them himself when He dealt with the Pharisees... (actors, liars). 

Now, mind you not all the Pope's may have lived lies and immorality while in the Vatican, but those who did, are not, could not, were not "infallible" when teaching morals ... there is no way. NOT BY THE WORD OF GOD.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 14:42:39

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 14:37:54

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 12:41:24
Oops, one more thing:

James, you said -

QuoteEven so, he also wrote against the notion of continuing in sin, which I believe was the point in the OP.

The point of the OP was that the Pope can't be infallible in teaching doctrine because he is not sinless.

Kensington was pretty clear about that.

No, what I said was he could not be possibly be infallible when speaking to matters of "SIN" when he himself is involved in sin, which brings up the point you made about Paul, Paul was a great sinner... His sins were great, and many. Thus making him as big a sinner as there was one, but that was before he was saved. Afterward, He was not openly walking in those same sins or more sins of immorality (such as Popes have) while teaching doctrine. God did not go to all the trouble to blind him and set him up as the foremost authority on bibilical teaching of the day so that he would have had mistress's or participated in plots to murder anyone.

That was my point. None of the Apostle's that JESUS appointed went about participating in open rebellion of sin and hypocrisy and teaching the word and "doctrine on morals" to the church.

Paul called himself "chief among sinners" who were saved by grace. He was speaking to his sins being worse and now he is saved. He was not saying, he was still participating in the sins that got him that "chief" sinner title. There is a difference.  You would have to believe that Paul continued to hunt and kill Christians or had sexual sins to believe he remained the same sinner that he was before, after he was saved. He did not, he walked in grace. And said so... He spoke to the unmarried, that they should if they could remain as he... but if they could not ( and Popes evidently can't) then rather than burn, they should marry. 

And I said and maintain that the claim that Jesus passed His infallibility to the Pope cannot be possible for Christ infallibilty comes with impeccability as He was sinless in all matters, and if God was passing that on, the pope would have it. 

My point to is that if you read the word of God, you will find that no man, not even Paul or Peter or John, claimed for themselves to be infallible. They claimed to be relying on God alone.  But, when receiving and giving divine revelation as it says the Pope does, I believe God would call them to live impeccable amoung men as even John did on the isle of Patmos.

Saying that "ALL SIN" is not justified in this case. For we know that there are those who can and do walk more honorably than others.  Able did it. Abraham did, Jabez was more honorable than his brothers. John, James, Paul, Timothy... none were caught in scandals of immorality while teaching the inspired word of God concerning morals.

And as I said... that is the VERY deffinition of Hypocrite.  To tell someone else, it is a sin, to stop it, while participating in the same sin. Thus, any Pope who EVER had sexual sins, and sins of murder, or theft, and debauchery while giving doctrine was NOT infallible. Nor could they have been.

Yes, God can keep the people from being deceived when hypocrisy is taught, but that is not the Pope or the teacher being infallible, that is GOD being infallible. And we know that He is also impeccable in His life.

I believe I see your point, Kensington, yet Paul his ownself says, in 1 Timothy, that he (Paul) IS (present tense!) the worst of sinners.

Do you believe Paul was mistaken in this?

A lot of posting has occured while I was on the phone.  I have looked up the commentary of Matthew Henry on the case of Paul:

It is a faithful saying, and therefore worthy to be embraced in the arms of faith: it is worthy of all acceptation, and therefore to be received with holy love, which refers to the foregoing verse, where the grace of Christ is said to abound in faith and love. In the close of the verse Paul applies it to himself: Of whom I am chief. Paul was a sinner of the first rank; so he acknowledges himself to have been, for he breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, etc., Acts 9:1, 2. Persecutors are some of the worst of sinners: such a one Paul had been. Or, of whom I am chief, that is, of pardoned sinners I am chief. It is an expression of his great humility; he that elsewhere calls himself the least of all saints (Eph. 3:8) here calls himself the chief of sinners.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 14:39:33
James - could you help me with this:

QuoteQuote
I understand this passage to be dealing more with the reason for Christ's coming, than being a definitive statement on Paul's current mindset about his own current sinfulness. Paul deals more with the aforementioned latter aspect in Romans chapter 7. Even so, while Paul sees his sinfulness, he also sees a difference between being a sinner, and continuing in sin (cf. Romans 6:1).

Whether the passage is intended to deal with the reason for Christ's coming, it is still a definitive statement on Paul's belief that he is still 'worst of sinners'.

The worst of sinners whom Christ came into the world to save. Such a reading, which is proper, does not make the statement definitive.

I'm assuming 'definitive ' means 'specifiy definitely', and Paul definitely says that he IS the worst of sinners.

How is that arguable?  Was Paul was mistaken?

Again, you leave out the rest of the expression, which is ultimately the answer to your dilemma. Paul said that he is the chief of sinners WHOM CHRIST CAME TO SAVE.

Furthermore, considering the larger context, go back to verse 13 for a moment. Notice that Paul says that he was "before" a blasphemer, a persecutor and injurious. In fact, this is the very reason why he considers himself the "chief of sinners" in verse 15, because he had persecuted the church (see 1 Cor. 15:9; cf. Acts 22:7-8; 26:14-15).

Is Paul still a blasphemer? No. Is he still that blasphemer whom christ came into the world to save? Yes...

  John 16 says..   "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.  He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you."

To WHOM was Jesus speaking?  He was speaking to men... not just ONE MAN. The Holy Spirit will lead all of us into truth.  He will guide each of us concerning moral teachings.

In verse 1 He says... "These things I teach you so that you may be kept from stumbling(sinning).  Which deflates the premise that the Pope has license to be unclean and still teach concerning morals by the Holy Spirit.

That idea does not line up with the word of God. 

All of the New Testament calls us to walk away from sin, to lay it down, to flee from it (run as being pursued)... and to walk uprightly before the LORD and to teach the gospel.  Those who teach while not pursuing righteousness are by very deiffinition, hypocrites.  And we know what Jesus thought of those.

That is why He sent the Holy Spirit to each of us, and stated the world cannot have it, because they do not know Him, but those who do, should be showing it.  The moment a Pope speaks a word on "morals" while having his hidden life masked in moral sin, He is NOT infallible.  He is greiving the Holy Spirit, in his sin, and speaking on his own. IMHO.  And according to the word.

When Peter denied the LORD three times, He hid, he pulled back, he did not speak out for the LORD, or to teach.  He most certainly did not put on robes, walk before the masses and bless them.  And there in lies the crux of the "infallible" deception for me. It cannot be true. NOT if you believe the WORD of God is true. That Jesus was impeccable and sinless and He was infallible. 

Quote from: James Rondon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 15:00:47

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 14:39:33
James - could you help me with this:

QuoteQuote

Thanks, James, for straightening that out.
I understand this passage to be dealing more with the reason for Christ's coming, than being a definitive statement on Paul's current mindset about his own current sinfulness. Paul deals more with the aforementioned latter aspect in Romans chapter 7. Even so, while Paul sees his sinfulness, he also sees a difference between being a sinner, and continuing in sin (cf. Romans 6:1).

Whether the passage is intended to deal with the reason for Christ's coming, it is still a definitive statement on Paul's belief that he is still 'worst of sinners'.

The worst of sinners whom Christ came into the world to save. Such a reading, which is proper, does not make the statement definitive.

I'm assuming 'definitive ' means 'specifiy definitely', and Paul definitely says that he IS the worst of sinners.

How is that arguable?  Was Paul was mistaken?

Again, you leave out the rest of the expression, which is ultimately the answer to your dilemma. Paul said that he is the chief of sinners WHOM CHRIST CAME TO SAVE.

Furthermore, considering the larger context, go back to verse 13 for a moment. Notice that Paul says that he was "before" a blasphemer, a persecutor and injurious. In fact, this is the very reason why he considers himself the "chief of sinners" in verse 15, because he had persecuted the church (see 1 Cor. 15:9; cf. Acts 22:7-8; 26:14-15).

Is Paul still a blasphemer? No. Is he still that blasphemer whom christ came into the world to save? Yes...

Thanks, James, for straightening that out.

I submit that it is POSSIBLE for a man of God (or woman) to walk out an impeccable walk before the LORD with the Help of the Holy Spirit, Because the word says so. The word says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, we just have to CHOOSE to walk in it when He does. Paul said it, James said it, John said it.  There will be a "Well done" spoken.  And it can happen to you, or me.  If we walk in His statutes and uprightly.  Not excusing sin. Open rebellious sin.

Once saved, it is possible to walk uprightly with God. 

If you do not, then you grieve the Holy Spirit.  And that is another reason why I don't believe any Pope is infallible. For God would not place a man over the body of Christ to walk openly in sin before them. Jesus did not die beaten upon the cross for that nonsense. He died that we may have life and have it more ABUNDANTLY...  He gives us who seek it the victory and deliverance from sin to walk in the grace gifted to us. 

He considered us family, brothers and sisters.  He speaks to us, concerning us. At the mercy seat, "Exodus 25".... no fallible man has that much more favor with God than any one of us. 

I believe that Catholics need to wake up to the FACT that Jesus came for ALL men and sent the Holy Spirit to lead ALL MEN into truth. Not just one man.

Bonnie, I can't speak to Matthew Henry's opinion; although I find it helpful to read others' opinions, I have to stick with what the scriptures say straight out.


And, straight out, Paul says that was a blasphemer and persecuter and whatnot (and still) IS the worst sinner of all.  Yet Christ uses him to display His patience to all who believe.

I'm not sure why you guys need to see Paul as sinless?  Is it only to justify the anti-Pope argument Kensington presented? 

In fact, this is off topic, but it seems there a segment of posters with a sort-of 'some sinners are worse than others' outlook I'm not familiar with.  Is this some particular denom teaching?  It something I haven't heard many people espouse before (lots of us practice it, we just don't usually preach it)

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 15:33:06
Bonnie, I can't speak to Matthew Henry's opinion; although I find it helpful to read others' opinions, I have to stick with what the scriptures say straight out.


And, straight out, Paul says that was a blasphemer and persecuter and whatnot (and still) IS the worst sinner of all.  Yet Christ uses him to display His patience to all who believe.

See my explanation in reply #40.

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 15:33:06
I'm not sure why you guys need to see Paul as sinless?  Is it only to justify the anti-Pope argument Kensington presented?

Who said Paul was sinless? 

Quote from: kmv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 15:33:06
In fact, this is off topic, but it seems there a segment of posters with a sort-of 'some sinners are worse than others' outlook I'm not familiar with.  Is this some particular denom teaching?  It something I haven't heard many people espouse before (lots of us practice it, we just don't usually preach it)

Are you saying that all sin is the same? If so, why is some sin referred to, specifically, as abominable, and why are some reserved for "greater judgment"?

I'm not sure why  you guys need to see Paul as sinless?  Is it only to justify the anti-Pope argument Kensington presented? 

To be accurate I NEVER said Paul was sinless... But, that I don't believe he was walking in open rebellious sin, such as adultery, fornication, murder plots and incest as some Popes have.

And... I did not make an "anti-Pope" argument. My argument is with the "infallible" mantle he is given by the Catholic church. Please don't turn this into something it is not.  This is about being "infallible" which no man can be.  I do not believe that Paul was absolutely infallible either. 

Again, this is not about "the Pope" this is about "infallible"... I"d like to keep it that way.  Surely you must understand that points on the Popes of history will come into the discussion,  they are the only ones who claim to be infallible.  Thanks.

In fact, this is off topic, but it seems there a segment of posters with a sort-of 'some sinners are worse than others' outlook I'm not familiar with.  Is this some particular denom teaching?  It something I haven't heard many people espouse before (lots of us practice it, we just don't usually preach it)

This is absolutely true by the word of God...  God states there are certain sins that are an abomination, and some that lead to judgement.

Jesus noted one himself, about little children.  I certainly do preach that. Or speak that.  I have stated openly that I believe there is a "judgement" for the priest who wore the cloth and molested children all unto it's own. Hell will be Hell, but I believe their torture while there, will be much different.  For they knew the truth, they were entrusted with children whom Jesus loves, and they destroyed their lives and innocence.

Indeed. The church may pay them large amounts of money.... and the church may even speak to the pain, and give attention to saying there is change. But, I just don't believe that cleans it all up for God.  I can't speak for God... I am not infallible, no man is, but the WORD of God says He is not a happy God when we hurt children. I can only go by that.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 16:00:35
In fact, this is off topic, but it seems there a segment of posters with a sort-of 'some sinners are worse than others' outlook I'm not familiar with.  Is this some particular denom teaching?  It something I haven't heard many people espouse before (lots of us practice it, we just don't usually preach it)

This is absolutely true by the word of God...  God states there are certain sins that are an abomination, and some that lead to judgement.

Jesus noted one himself, about little children.  I certainly do preach that. Or speak that.  I have stated openly that I believe there is a "judgement" for the priest who wore the cloth and molested children all unto it's own. Hell will be Hell, but I believe their torture while there, will be much different.  For they knew the truth, they were entrusted with children whom Jesus loves, and they destroyed their lives and innocence.

Indeed. The church may pay them large amounts of money.... and the church may even speak to the pain, and give attention to saying there is change. But, I just don't believe that cleans it all up for God.  I can't speak for God... I am not infallible, no man is, but the WORD of God says He is not a happy God when we hurt children. I can only go by that.

If you believe that some sinners are 'worse' than others, then there's not much point in continuing. 

The thing is, when you convince yourself that this sinner is worse than that one, you soon convince yourself that this sinner is worse than you.  You become confident of your own righteousness.  And that's the path to destruction.



I will say something upon which I'm absolutely convinced.  That little voice that says "I'm not as sinful as the Pope, or that prostitute, or that dope addict" - that's the voice of Satan.

By saying that he was the "chief of sinners", wasn't Paul saying that others were not as sinful?

I'm just now seeing this thread and haven't read through it yet...I was wondering if there was any way to recover one or two of the longer posts I made on the subject in the "mormonism/catholicism" thread that was deleted so that I could repost them here instead? I put quite a bit of thought into them and it explained my feelings on the matter pretty well...I'd hate to try and recreate it because I know it won't be as good.

Is that possible, mods? If not I understand. Thanks!

I'd rather you didn't mellevar, that discussion has nothing to do with this one.  This is not about the Seat of the Pope or mormons... It's about the "infallible" and no more.

Mods, please don't bring that topic in here. Thanks.

I know that you stated that "infallible" does not indicate "impeccable"... I give you that. Nothing else from that topic is pertinent to this discussion.

If you believe that some sinners are 'worse' than others, then there's not much point in continuing.

The thing is, when you convince yourself that this sinner is worse than that one, you soon convince yourself that this sinner is worse than you.  You become confident of your own righteousness.  And that's the path to destruction.

What was Paul saying then?  IF He cannot be "chief" among sinners, why use it to make your point. If there is no sin God judges differently then how could Paul state He was "the worst" sinner?  Was Paul calling God a liar?

I never stated that I have sins less than anyone. Please don't confuse one issue with another.  We are discussing whether or not ANY MAN... human born man can be infallible. I do not think so. 

The WORD does not indicate that God gave us that as a gift at any place.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 18:15:38
I'm just now seeing this thread and haven't read through it yet...I was wondering if there was any way to recover one or two of the longer posts I made on the subject in the "mormonism/catholicism" thread that was deleted so that I could repost them here instead? I put quite a bit of thought into them and it explained my feelings on the matter pretty well...I'd hate to try and recreate it because I know it won't be as good.

Is that possible, mods? If not I understand. Thanks!

I hope that if this is possible for one person to retreive posts in a closed topic, that we all can. I also made comments in there I deem to be reliable to discussion. However, I do maintain that I don't believe any of that topic is pertinent to this one.

I was thinking what James said above and did a quick search and turned this up about the sin question.

Two very opposites, both backed by scripture.  What do you guys think?

Q.Can you please tell me where in the Bible it talks about all sins being equal? Are all sins equal? Is there a verse that says all sins are equal or not?

I know of no passage in the Bible that indicates that one sin is greater than another. Very often the consequences are greater as the result of some sins as opposed to other sins.

The Bible speaks of the Sin against the Holy Spirit, which is not applicable to this discussion. Any sin is a violation of God's law. As human beings, we sometimes categorize some sins as worse than others, but not in the eyes of God. One of our great difficulties in our service to God is that we often think little "white sins" are not as bad as those "big bad sins." Our difficulty is that we do not see sin through the eyes of God, but through human eyes.

Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4) or transgression of God's will, either by omitting to do what God's law requires or by doing what it forbids. The transgression can occur in thought (1 John 3:15), word (Matthew 5:22), or deed (Romans 1:32).

James 2:10
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
NIV

Romans 3:23-24
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NIV

1 John 3:4-5
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
NIV

The following passage shows that Jesus died for every sin of all of us. Sin is so terrible that no less than the Son of God could make atonement for sin.

Titus 2:14
14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
NIV

http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&id=402

________________________________________________________________

Question: "Are all sins equal to God?"

Answer: In Matthew 5:21-28, Jesus equates committing adultery with having lust in your heart, and committing murder with having hatred in your heart. However, this does not mean the sins are equal. What Jesus was trying to get across to the Pharisees was that it is still sin even if you only think about or want to do the act. The religious leaders of Jesus' day taught people that it was okay to think about anything you wanted to, as long as you did not act on those desires. Jesus is forcing them to realize that God judges a person's thoughts as well as their actions. Jesus proclaimed that our actions are the results of what is in our hearts (Matthew 12:34).

So, although Jesus said that lust and adultery are both sins – that does not mean they are equal. It is much worse to actually murder a person than it is to simply hate them – even though they are both sinful in God's sight. There are degrees to sin. Some sins are worse than others. At the same time, in regards to both eternal consequences and salvation, all sins are the same. Each and every sin will lead to eternal condemnation (Romans 6:23). All sin, no matter how "small,

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 19:01:33
I'd rather you didn't mellevar, that discussion has nothing to do with this one.  This is not about the Seat of the Pope or mormons... It's about the "infallible" and no more.

Mods, please don't bring that topic in here. Thanks.

I know that you stated that "infallible" does not indicate "impeccable"... I give you that. Nothing else from that topic is pertinent to this discussion.

I didn't mean the whole discussion, I meant the exact part about "infallible" vs "impeccable." I wrote a whole quite long post devoted to that alone, I actually didn't even say anything about the mormon stuff ever.

But oh well...I'll try to remember what I said and re-say it if I need to.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 19:07:19

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 18:15:38
I'm just now seeing this thread and haven't read through it yet...I was wondering if there was any way to recover one or two of the longer posts I made on the subject in the "mormonism/catholicism" thread that was deleted so that I could repost them here instead? I put quite a bit of thought into them and it explained my feelings on the matter pretty well...I'd hate to try and recreate it because I know it won't be as good.

Is that possible, mods? If not I understand. Thanks!

I hope that if this is possible for one person to retreive posts in a closed topic, that we all can. I also made comments in there I deem to be reliable to discussion.

Yes I would hope so as well...I have a forum of my own, and it's not uncommon for me to "break off" pieces of one thread that are on a different tangent into a different thread, and include all of the relevant posts from everyone.  I think this particular topic was a tangental one in that thread, not actually on the topic of the whole mormon/catholic thing, which is why I asked. 

Regardless, I don't have time tonight but tomorrow I will try to come back and answer some of what you have said with my own understanding of things.

Good night!

I don't recall asking you to answer any questions for me mellevar.  I understand infallible and impeccable, I am not an idiot. I didn't ask any Catholic to give me their understanding. 

I've read it, I looked it up in the Cathechism and I understand english when I read it.

I get the premise that the church believes that he does not have to live impeccable to be infallible, that Jesus passed His infallibility on to the Pope so that he could speak to matters of "doctrine and morals".

And they maintain he can do this even while living in sinful states of moral decay and debauchery himself...

To that, I say BULL. God calls no man to live in sin and speak for him. If you are going to post that any POPE can be participating in the sins of murder, incest, fornication and other such sins and speak on behalf of God to the people concerning morals in the church, or doctrine concerning morals.. I AM GOING TO SAY AGAIN AND AGAIN... THAT IS A LIE.

God does not CALL men to live that way and to dispense doctrine while doing it. It's not in the NEW TESTAMENT and you cannot show a scripture that proves ANY MAN CAN LIVE IN OPEN SIN... REBELLION against God and sin against his own body... and speak to doctrine on morals ... Jesus calls that hypocrisy.

And I can prove that by scripture...  He called the Pharisees who did this very thing, "snakes, vipers, and liars".... thus... what is good for the goose (Pharisees) is good for the gander (Pope). 

If you all want to follow a man who is living impeccable morals in his teachings of morals, I'm all good with that. But, don't tell me the POPES who lived the way described in history and even testified to by the church, were infallible. I'm not going to buy it... and I will continue to teach it's false. 

But, please.. if you are replying to give your understanding of infallible and or impeccable, we don't need it. We've just been discussing it, we get that part. We have read the explination of how the Catholic church believes it happened. I don't care about that. I care about what the WORD says... and by the word of God, straight from Jesus mouth... ANY MAN who would teach about morals while living in moral decay is a "hypocrite" ... to try to prove other wise is to calls Jesus a liar. 

Make no mistake about that.

Quote from: kensington on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 01:47:19
I don't recall asking you to answer any questions for me mellevar.  I understand infallible and impeccable, I am not an idiot. I didn't ask any Catholic to give me their understanding. 

Not to offend, but if you don't want any Catholic to tell you what he believes, then why are you posting about Catholic teaching on a public forum?

Quote from: kensington on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 01:47:19
I don't recall asking you to answer any questions for me mellevar.  I understand infallible and impeccable, I am not an idiot. I didn't ask any Catholic to give me their understanding. 

I've read it, I looked it up in the Cathechism and I understand english when I read it.

I get the premise that the church believes that he does not have to live impeccable to be infallible, that Jesus passed His infallibility on to the Pope so that he could speak to matters of "doctrine and morals".

And they maintain he can do this even while living in sinful states of moral decay and debauchery himself...

Ok good, I'm glad to know you understand this part. Thank you for saying it in your own words so that I can see you understand, that is helpful!

QuoteTo that, I say BULL. God calls no man to live in sin and speak for him.

AHA!! Now this may be part of our misunderstanding...I never said God called men to live in sin and debauchery. Certainly not! This is contrary to all that God asks of us, and it is reprehensible, whether done by a pope or a preacher or any Christian at all. We are not condoning the immoral actions of some past popes.

QuoteIf you are going to post that any POPE can be participating in the sins of murder, incest, fornication and other such sins and speak on behalf of God to the people concerning morals in the church, or doctrine concerning morals.. I AM GOING TO SAY AGAIN AND AGAIN... THAT IS A LIE.

I suppose my question is...do you not think God is capable of speaking through anyone? Even a sinner? (And I'm not implying that you do think this, I'm asking you so that I understand better what you're saying!) This is all we mean. You see, for us the protection of the teachings of the Church from error is very, very important. It is so important, that we believe the office of the pope is protected. It's quite extraordinary, really, and to us it shows that power of God...that even IF a very sinful man sits in the Chair of Peter (for all of them will no doubt be sinners to some extent, as we all are), God will protect the teachings of the Church. He will not allow this person to teach that sinful things are good.

You may have had popes that committed adultery...but they never taught that adultery was ok! You may have had popes that were greedy...but they never taught that greed was ok!

Does this make them hypocrites? ABSOLUTELY YES!!! But that doesn't speak to the possibility or impossibility of it happening. God spoke through a donkey! Why wouldn't he be able to use a sinful man to speak through him? 

Again I think of the scriptures that say, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."

He is essentially calling them hypocrites, right? "They preach but they do not practice." Regardless, he still says "Do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you." He doesn't say ignore them since they're hypocrites, he doesn't say they're not preaching the right stuff since they're hypocrites, he says do what they tell you, but don't be like them and be hypocrites, unlike them, actually DO what they preach.

Infallibility is really not about the pope all that much, he is just the mouthpiece through which it happens. The purpose for it is to protect the teachings of the Church, because that is the very important thing. Since it is so important, we believe God ALWAYS gives the Church teachings this protection, regardless of who the mouthpiece is or whether he is a hypocrite or not. It's not about the pope, you see, it's about the teachings.

QuoteGod does not CALL men to live that way and to dispense doctrine while doing it.

Certainly, he absolutely does not call men to live that way. What they are doing is contrary to God's word, no doubt about it.

But again, we believe that even if someone lives that way, the teachings are still protected.

QuoteIt's not in the NEW TESTAMENT and you cannot show a scripture that proves ANY MAN CAN LIVE IN OPEN SIN... REBELLION against God and sin against his own body... and speak to doctrine on morals ... Jesus calls that hypocrisy.

Well...it seems to me that's kind of exactly what he said with regard to the scribes and pharisees in Matt. 23. 

Are they hypocrites? Yes, you're absolutely right! But that doesn't mean it's impossible that what they're saying is right, even if they don't themselves follow it.

That's certainly not the ideal! That's not what should happen, our teachers should be examples of what they're teaching, to the best of their ability. And I'm not saying a horribly sinful pope is the ideal or that it's perfectly fine...I'm just saying, we believe God protects Church teaching despite the sinfulness of the person in office.

So yes, we should be examples of what we teach. But the problem is, we're all sinners. How far do we take it? Can I teach a child not to yell at his siblings in anger if I have a problem with yelling at my husband in anger? I actually don't think that makes me a hypocrite...in my mind, a hypocrite is someone who teaches something but doesn't believe it himself. I DO believe I shouldn't yell, and I admit when I do I'm doing wrong, but being human and weak and a sinner, there will likely be times when I'll do it again, despite knowing it's wrong, although I pray that God gives me the grace to avoid it.

I'd say a hypocrite is somone who teaches something as wrong, but doesn't actually believe it's wrong and has no problem doing those things himself.  I wouldn't call someone who teaches that something is wrong, sincerely acknowledges it as wrong, but struggles with the issue himself a hypocrite, personally. I'd just say they were a fellow sinner!

QuoteAnd I can prove that by scripture...  He called the Pharisees who did this very thing, "snakes, vipers, and liars".... thus... what is good for the goose (Pharisees) is good for the gander (Pope). 

Certainly...but he never said it was an impossibility for them to teach truth, despite their actions. In fact he seems to say the opposite...that despite their actions, they're teaching the truth so do as they say, not as they do.

QuoteIf you all want to follow a man who is living impeccable morals in his teachings of morals, I'm all good with that. But, don't tell me the POPES who lived the way described in history and even testified to by the church, were infallible. I'm not going to buy it... and I will continue to teach it's false.

Well, I hope you see why I still maintain that yes, despite their evil deeds, they were infallible. It's not about them, it's about the Power of God protecting His Church from teaching error, despite whoever happens to be Pope.

QuoteBut, please.. if you are replying to give your understanding of infallible and or impeccable, we don't need it. We've just been discussing it, we get that part. We have read the explination of how the Catholic church believes it happened. I don't care about that. I care about what the WORD says... and by the word of God, straight from Jesus mouth... ANY MAN who would teach about morals while living in moral decay is a "hypocrite" ... to try to prove other wise is to calls Jesus a liar. 

Make no mistake about that.

And I certainly wouldn't try to prove otherwise, I agree that someone teaching something that he doesn't himself believe and follow to the best of his ability is a hypocrite. My point was more that despite being a hypocrite, Almighty God can speak through him anyway, and it seems Jesus himself supports that idea by telling those in the bible to "do as they say, not as they do."

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 00:59:09
Someone stated in another topic that the Pope while infallible is not impeccable.

And yet, the Cathechism states that He is both.

By the way, I'm not sure what you meant by this...the catechism never states that the pope is impeccable.  

QuoteNo man can be impeccable as is the claim, nor infallible.

Again, this is not the claim...in the post I just responded to, though, it seems you understood this quite well already so perhaps you realized the error in this statement, in which case just ignore me! 

QuoteAnd he is infallible in such proclaimations?  HOW?  When one is not living it, how does one proclaim it?  By hypocrisy alone.

Indeed! That doesn't make it impossible, though. It's not the ideal, certainly, but all things are possible with God, after all. 

Stephanie, you never cease to impress me...well done!  Well done indeed!

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 11:40:26
Stephanie, you never cease to impress me...well done!  Well done indeed!

Why thank you. 

Quote from: mllevaleur on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 11:55:18

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 11:40:26
Stephanie, you never cease to impress me...well done!  Well done indeed!

Why thank you. 

Someone once told me that I always cease to impress them. 

In reading through this thread, I thought I might add a little clarification..

Being fallible or infallible has to do with decision making. For one to be fallible, he has to decide something and he may be wrong or right about that something. For one to be infallible he has to decide something and he will always be right about that something.

We say that the pope is infallible in certain circumstances, which means the decisions he makes regarding what is right doctrine is correct, we believe the Holy Spirit is guiding him (and through him, us) into all truth.

Now, to make a decision, one has to be animate. That is, an inanimate object cannot be infallible, because it does not make decisions.

Therefore, to say that the bible is infallible is a misuse of the word...the Bible is inerrant. It contains no error. But it does not make decisions itself, because it is a book. A great and holy and inerrant book! But a book nonetheless.

And, of course, as we've already established, impeccable means completely without sin, and none of us, even popes, are that!

So people may be fallible or infallible, peccable or impeccable, and things may be errant or inerrant.  

So, just some clarification regarding word usage!

Quote from: kensington on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 00:59:09
Someone stated in another topic that the Pope while infallible is not impeccable.

And yet, the Cathechism states that He is both.

Do you have a reference for this, Kensington?

Quote from: kmv on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 09:01:23

Quote from: kensington on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 01:47:19
I don't recall asking you to answer any questions for me mellevar.  I understand infallible and impeccable, I am not an idiot. I didn't ask any Catholic to give me their understanding. 

Not to offend, but if you don't want any Catholic to tell you what he believes, then why are you posting about Catholic teaching on a public forum?

Because the topic if discussion was not a question, It was a statement of belief. I alreadly know what the Catholic's believe, they believe that he is infallible but not obligated to be impeccable, as the Apsostles lived.  They deem even those Pope's infallible who participated in sins while in the Vatican, seated, speaking to "doctrines of morals".... that is already clear.

Why would I need someone to explain to me what was already a given in the first post?  For what purpose does it serve for someone to re-explain something that has been declared in the Catehism, and explained already?  Explaining it again and again... as I can see mellevar is doing, doesn't change the FACT that it is not based on SCRIPTURE and it's not Biblical for that reason.

Does that make sense?  If I wanted to "ask a Catholic" that is the thread I would be in.  KWIM? 

Mellevar... one statement... Jesus did not say that being a hypocrite was OK. He never implied it was "accurate" teaching that mattered when dealing with the Pharisess... if you can show me where he did... that would be nice. He didn't. He rejected them as teachers, He rejected their teachings for the people, and went out in front of masses of people and taught his own. 

He told them, everything about them was unworthy... and that would include the teachings.  I don't know how your Church came to the conclusion that a man can lay in a bed with his daughter and his teachings were infallible in the eyes of God... GOD would not even be in that. He would not even look upon Him. He does not look upon sin. He does not seek out men such as this to speak through. He would choose a donkey first. Paul while being the chief sinner as has been so much declared here... was STOPPED and CHANGED ... BEFORE speaking one word in teaching to anyone. He had to travel BLIND first even. 

I'm sorry... but I repeat....  The Pope who wallows in sin is NOT infallible.  That is NOT Jesus, He does NOT carry on that way.

I know you and broach can sit here and smile, and back pat all day that you "explained" what I already knew you believed. But, you did not prove it to be biblical.  The VERY WORD OF GOD says that by His Holy nature God would not participate in such damnable things... and I can still ignore the implication that "Popes" who are not at least given over to GOD 100% in prayer and service are infallible.

In my opinion, the Apostles lived as impeccable as any men could after being saved.  Were this debaucher lifestyle acceptable to God... there would not be a list of sins and those who commit them in the book of Revelation, (SPOKEN by Jesus Himself) of those who cannot see Heaven.

What you suggest is that any Pope who lived out his life in the Vatican with women, incest, murder and all manner of debaucher, including childe molestation and the covering it up...  are "Perfect" in teaching, and will go to Heaven.

But...  Revelation 21:26 says that not only are these not holy, infallible men, but that many of your Popes will go to Hell.  If your life and sins of rebellion are any indication of who you are before Christ,  then I feel confident saying that.  God never knew them, I doubt He would speak through them or call them infallible. But, He says... "Depart from me I knew you not"...

And I really feel for those in the Catholic church who when they get to Heaven, will wonder... "where are all the Popes?"

The Catechism states that Jesus passed on this infallible nature to the POPE... Jesus was impeccable and infallible both in one, ...  the implication is that the nature of God is passed on into this man. That is false. The bible plainly NEVER says that. EVER.  I gave two examples of what the catechism states concering the process of this "supernatural" imparting that only the Pope gets. 

But, it does not line up with God. It could not happen in the case of the morally corrupt man.  It's just a false doctrine ...  God would not call upon a man involved in incest to speak to the masses concerning morals... WHY WOULD HE?  He already spoke to morals in His own word. 

QuoteBecause the topic if discussion was not a question, It was a statement of belief. I alreadly know what the Catholic's believe, they believe that he is infallible but not obligated to be impeccable, as the Apsostles lived.  They deem even those Pope's infallible who participated in sins while in the Vatican, seated, speaking to "doctrines of morals".... that is already clear.

Why would I need someone to explain to me what was already a given in the first post?  For what purpose does it serve for someone to re-explain something that has been declared in the Catehism, and explained already?  Explaining it again and again... as I can see mellevar is doing, doesn't change the FACT that it is not based on SCRIPTURE and it's not Biblical for that reason.

And again,

Does that make sense?  If I wanted to "ask a Catholic" that is the thread I would be in.  KWIM? 

I'm sure you don't mean to be, but it seems mean-spirited to start a thread just to tell other posters that what they believe is wrong, and then refuse to listen when they try to explain that you're wrong about what they believe.

If you don't intend to discuss your point, then isn't the whole thread just an exercise in Catholic-bashing?

****
Even though I don't agree with all (or most) of mllevallour's interpretations, she does have some wisdom to offer.  For example, you said this:

QuoteHe never implied it was "accurate" teaching that mattered when dealing with the Pharisess... if you can show me where he did... that would be nice. He didn't. He rejected them as teachers,

As mllevallour pointed out, the New Testament does, indeed, show exactly that:

Matthew 23:1-3

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 - 11:19:42
I thought the Pope was only infallible when he spoke from his special chair.

I gotta get me one o' those...

This just in:

I have acquired a special chair from which I am infallible when I speak.  Now you all have to believe everything I say.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

KVM and Mellevar...  Maybe you should have read all of it... not just the 1-3 verses ...

It says... "The scribes and the Pharisees have "seated themselves" in the chair of moses. (It doesn't say God appointed it to them divinely)  And He went on to say they "add on heavy weights upon the people, while not doing it themselves..

Which is the VERY point I made... They do all they do to be noticed by men. They love the place of honor, they wear the robes, and being called teacher by men.

BUT... DO NOT be called "Rabbi" by men... For the ONE is your teacher (Jesus), and you are all brothers... notice the denouncing of these religious leaders who spoke the law to the people but did not obey it?  He tells them... HE is the one teacher. And in the same passage goes on to say "Do NOT call any man Father".... that would include "Holy Father" a title given to the POPE.  For, He teaches, there is but one Father, the ONE in Heaven. 

Then notice He indeed goes on to tell the Pharisees and scribes... WOE TO YOU... HYPOCRITES because you have shut off the Kingdom of heaven from men. For you DO NOT ENTER YOURSELVES nor do you allow those who follow you to go in.  ( He is saying that they religious leaders are leading the people so far astray, they are keeping them from walking with God. )

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees... Hypocrites, therefore you shall receives greater condemnation. 

If you are going to read Matthew 23 and the part where Jesus tells the people to follow the law... the law was already written.  He was not giving those Pharisees infallibility.... He was giving the LAW infallibility and saying that the Pharisees preach it, and demand it from others while not obeying.

It's the same principle... Only the Pharisees were not making doctrine on morals as the Pope does, they were teaching the already written LAW to the letter. 

And Jesus went on to say that the men who lived as they did, and as many Popes have, are not infallible, it is the Law that is infallible. No man is.. He includes that to preach the LAW or give the doctrine and teach the peoples what you do not practice... brings a greater condemnation up you from Heaven...

It's an interesting read... ALL of it.. Matthew 23:1-29.   Wow... you miss so much when you stop at vs 3!!  Especially if you are trying to use it to defend the infallible arguement. Of course the LAW was infallible... but the men were not. They were in fact, facing judgment!