Christian Forums

BTW...  KMV...  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,

I didn't start this tread to tell Catholics anything. I started it to state what I see and believe about statements made concerning the Pope being infallible. It was not started towards Catholics.  There are many other people here to discuss with. 

I am not just saying "THEY" are wrong, I am stating that by the WORD of God, this principle of infallibility in a man is wrong. That God did not impart that part of his nature to a Pope, and the word does not confirm that He did.

What is mean spirited about wanting to see the truth of God's word discussed?  Seeking after truth is one things God told us to do. I find the probability that a sinful Pope would be infallible by the WORD of God, to be a false doctrine.

As for telling someone what they do believe is wrong...  I don't see the mean spiritedness in that either.  People used to believe that smoking was harmless, until someone cared enough to tell them.  I know you want to defend your friend, that is worthy. But, even Mellevar would tell you it's wrong to judge someone's heart.   

Quote from: kensington on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 21:10:45
BTW...  KMV...  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,

Yep

But, again to defend myself against this false accusation, my first post was not to Catholics, it was to this discussion forum. For anyone who was reading. It was my thoughts, my seeking, my findings. 

It was not to tell any one person what they believe is wrong. It was to line the doctrine and the teaching up with the WORD of God and the nature of God...  That is what proved the possibility of someone being infallible is wrong... not me.

I forgive you for the false accusation.  I can't get stuck there.

At Kensington's suggestion, the thread's back up with the last part removed. Thanks.

QuoteWhen one is not living it, how does one proclaim it?  By hypocrisy alone.

Not sure where this came from, but every preacher I know will just have to shut up. Everyone teaches the perfection of Christ. None can live up to it. Everyone sins and falls short of God's standard. I surely don't consider every preacher a hypocrite.

FTL

Quote from: Harold on Fri Apr 25, 2008 - 17:31:36

QuoteWhen one is not living it, how does one proclaim it?  By hypocrisy alone.

Not sure where this came from, but every preacher I know will just have to shut up. Everyone teaches the perfection of Christ. None can live up to it. Everyone sins and falls short of God's standard. I surely don't consider every preacher a hypocrite.

FTL

Just incidentally,

The word hypocrite has changed meaning over time.  When Jesus said it, it didn't mean quite the same thing as the way we're all using it.

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Apr 25, 2008 - 17:47:54

Quote from: Harold on Fri Apr 25, 2008 - 17:31:36

QuoteWhen one is not living it, how does one proclaim it?  By hypocrisy alone.

Not sure where this came from, but every preacher I know will just have to shut up. Everyone teaches the perfection of Christ. None can live up to it. Everyone sins and falls short of God's standard. I surely don't consider every preacher a hypocrite.

FTL

Just incidentally,

The word hypocrite has changed meaning over time.  When Jesus said it, it didn't mean quite the same thing as the way we're all using it.

Jarrod

What did it mean, Jarrod?

It is not just that anyone who may fail, and who preaches the gospel would be a hypocrite. They way I learned it was that it was like this...

Lets say... you are a smoking drinker in your everyday life.  And I teach or I tell you that smoking and drinking is a sin... you need to stop it, lay it down. Give it up,  and then, I go home and sit down and have a ciggerette and a drink.

That is what hypocrisy is... telling someone they are sinning and need to stop, and you have that same hidden sin.

Jesus likened the hypocrite to "actors" ... peolpe who fake  righteousness to preach it to others. 

This is why I equated a Pope who was inthrawled in such sins as listed above to be a hypocrite if he was speaking to "doctrine of morals" and certainly would not be "Infallible" in his teachings.  I hope that makes sense.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Apr 25, 2008 - 17:47:54

Quote from: Harold on Fri Apr 25, 2008 - 17:31:36

QuoteWhen one is not living it, how does one proclaim it?  By hypocrisy alone.

Not sure where this came from, but every preacher I know will just have to shut up. Everyone teaches the perfection of Christ. None can live up to it. Everyone sins and falls short of God's standard. I surely don't consider every preacher a hypocrite.

FTL

Just incidentally,

The word hypocrite has changed meaning over time.  When Jesus said it, it didn't mean quite the same thing as the way we're all using it.

Jarrod

I would like to know what it meant then as well....interesting....

Makes sense to me, Kensington. 

Quote from: kensington on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 15:03:53

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. 

This is what I was going to say, buit you already said it so well...so I will sit back and say, "Preach it Sister!" 

Quote from: kensington on Fri Apr 25, 2008 - 23:12:35
It is not just that anyone who may fail, and who preaches the gospel would be a hypocrite. They way I learned it was that it was like this...

Lets say... you are a smoking drinker in your everyday life.  And I teach or I tell you that smoking and drinking is a sin... you need to stop it, lay it down. Give it up,  and then, I go home and sit down and have a ciggerette and a drink.

That is what hypocrisy is... telling someone they are sinning and need to stop, and you have that same hidden sin.

Jesus likened the hypocrite to "actors" ... peolpe who fake  righteousness to preach it to others. 

This is why I equated a Pope who was inthrawled in such sins as listed above to be a hypocrite if he was speaking to "doctrine of morals" and certainly would not be "Infallible" in his teachings.  I hope that makes sense.

That's what the Bible says, amen!

Quote from: kensington on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 21:28:42
But, again to defend myself against this false accusation, my first post was not to Catholics, it was to this discussion forum. For anyone who was reading. It was my thoughts, my seeking, my findings. 

It was not to tell any one person what they believe is wrong. It was to line the doctrine and the teaching up with the WORD of God and the nature of God...  That is what proved the possibility of someone being infallible is wrong... not me.

I forgive you for the false accusation.  I can't get stuck there.

Ok.  So mllevallour's input is welcome, as that of anyone reading? At least, anyone who will behave?  I just misunderstood from the don't 'answer any questions for me' post, and thought you didn't want mllevallour's thoughts - sorry!

There's been a lot of back & forth, so would you me understand another point correctly:
*  Can a sinner be used to teach the truth? 
*  If so, can one who is not practicing what they preach (a hypocrite, in other words) teach the truth?  Note- not 'are they right with God?' but 'can they teach the truth?'

Thanks.

So I preach repent, and stop sinning. It does not mean I will not sin.

All of us sin.

But I understand what you are saying, hypocrite show me one face but you are really the other.

FTL

Quote from: kmv on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 13:53:34

Quote from: kensington on Thu Apr 24, 2008 - 21:28:42
But, again to defend myself against this false accusation, my first post was not to Catholics, it was to this discussion forum. For anyone who was reading. It was my thoughts, my seeking, my findings. 

It was not to tell any one person what they believe is wrong. It was to line the doctrine and the teaching up with the WORD of God and the nature of God...  That is what proved the possibility of someone being infallible is wrong... not me.

I forgive you for the false accusation.  I can't get stuck there.

Ok.  So mllevallour's input is welcome, as that of anyone reading? At least, anyone who will behave?  I just misunderstood from the don't 'answer any questions for me' post, and thought you didn't want mllevallour's thoughts - sorry!

There's been a lot of back & forth, so would you me understand another point correctly:
*  Can a sinner be used to teach the truth? 
*  If so, can one who is not practicing what they preach (a hypocrite, in other words) teach the truth?  Note- not 'are they right with God?' but 'can they teach the truth?'

Thanks.

Yes, my point was, I had already seen that explination, and it did not change anything. To repeat it to me again, was going to be futile.   I am not seeking the same pat answers to the questions. I am saying, I've heard that, now THIS is what the WORD of GOD says. 

I had every indication what "Infallible" meant and what "Impeccable" meant.. I did not need that repeated.  I was not debating deffinition, I was debating and still do if it is possible for someone to claim that God imparted those atributes to someone just because he wears the "Pope" hat... I do not believe he does.  God's nature is all consuming...  for Him to impart just "infallible" on someone... They would have to AT LEAST be striving to live up to the standard he demanded from His own 12 Apostles when He sent them to start the church.

And since we all know the sins ... I don't mean... "a sinner" as in "sinner saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ and what He did on Calvary"   I mean someone who is walking in open rebellion against the very commands for which he is supposed to be the moral vicar on behalf of Christ. 

NO... I don't believe that kind of infallibility is given to someone who is that.  Jesus NOT only rebuked the Pharisees, when telling the people to obey the written law they were speaking... He did away with that part of Religion when He went to the Cross.  He became the High Priest... The ONE who speaks to moral doctrine. He spoke it... it's in the word. It's infallible. And no man walking deep in debauchery is going to get that nature from Him.

It that were the case... NO ONE WOULD HAVE TO GET SAVED OR REPENT  to be an apostile, or disciple or to go to Heaven.

Jesus never told us to 'Just speak truth' at people.. IF you read the whole of Matthew 23... and the New Testement, He called those who are called by His name to come up higher, live higher, be higher in morals then those they teach.

You asked if a sinner could teach truth.... ??   Good question.... When a known liar tells the truth, does anyone believe him?

Jacob aka Israel


Chosen and used by faith, not perfection

Quote from: jmg3rd on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 17:58:56
Jacob aka Israel


Chosen and used by faith, not perfection

Jacob wrestled with God, and God won. Jacobh walked with God.. and with a limp to prove it. Men called of God to lead are not called to that kind of life. 

What is your point?  Joseph walked by faith. Not by chosen sins.  You are not getting what I am saying. 

What debauchery did Joseph wallow in?  He refused Potifars wife. He went to jail for being righteous. He went so far to do right, He was rejected by his own brothers, taken from his father Jacob, and put in prison. 

Which Pope did strive that far to walk uprightly?  I think you are missing that there is a difference in striving to walk uprightly and wallowing in debauchery and sin. 

Sheesh... Moses committed murder BEFORE God called him. But, I'll bet he didn't go around killing anyone after God called him to be the leader of the Nation of Israel.  Paul, hunted and killed Christians... BUT NOT after he was saved.  We are speaking to OPEN and REBELLIOUS sin and calling yourself infallible.  It's not biblical.

David sinned... and for that... He was punished. He was not given "Infallibility" ... He had a prophet who spoke for him the will of God for the people.

I am speaking to the Popes who have been listed as men of sin...  God gives infallibility of speaking the word to Prophets... not men in sin.  Do you compare Elijah, Elisha, or Isaiah to these men of sin called "Pope"?

You asked if anyone would believe a liar.  Jacob was a known liar.  Do you believe his testimony about God handed down through the Holy Nation of Israel and the OT?  If so, you'll quickly see how Jacob is an answer to your question.

Isn't the "Pontiff" a NEW TESTAMENT principle?   Isn't this man supposed to be aware of Jesus and His death on the cross?  Isn't He supposed to know and have the Holy Spirit to guide him into all truth?  Isn't He supposed to have the BIBLE written to read and know that sin is sin, and that a man who is born again, saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, is called to righteousness, to lay down the sins of this world and to cleave unto His God?

This is the man WHO is supposed to be speaking docrine concerning morals to the people. 

Show me where Paul had incest in his walk, show me where he murdered, or had a mistress or children out of marriage.  Convince me that GOD says we can do all that.  Show me.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 18:21:33
You asked if anyone would believe a liar.  Jacob was a known liar.  Do you believe his testimony about God handed down through the Holy Nation of Israel and the OT?  If so, you'll quickly see how Jacob is an answer to your question.

Jacob was not a liar AFTER having wrestled with God ... nor after he walked with him the rest of his life.

Jacob was called a liar BEFORE God got ahold of him.

A Pope is supposed to be known as a man of truth.. but some of them have lived some VERY BIG LIES.

I have no idea where this fits into the thread, but if a liar tells the truth, that doesn't make it any less the truth.

Kensington, if you believe that Elisha, Elijah or any of the prophets were sinless, you are wrong.  If you believe that Paul was sinless after his conversion, you are wrong - see Romans 7.  God uses fallible people all the time.  Thank God that when we sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.  The goal is not to sin - but we will never perfectly reach that goal this side of heaven.

Quote from: marc on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 18:30:50
I have no idea where this fits into the thread, but if a liar tells the truth, that doesn't make it any less the truth.

But in order for it to change a life or make a difference, someone will have to receive it and believe it.

Even when a liar tells the truth, no one believes him.  This is probably why GOD changes lives when He calls them to use them.

Just like Paul.. Had Paul continued to hunt and kill Christians... who would have set under his teachings? 

Spurly... you missed my point.  I did not say any of them were sinless or perfect. I SAID... NOT to be walking in open debauchery... WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?

I know I am typing in english.  I've made it clear, time and time again...  Once a life is in God's hands, it is different. Sins fall away, people strive to walk with Him and please Him.  You hit the nail on the head though...  NO ONE is infallible.. Not even the POPE!

Ok, um, I didn't defend the papacy, so that response doesn't make a whole of sense.  I answered the question about whether or not a known liar might possibly be able to spread truth at times. 

Quote from: kensington on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 18:26:14

Quote from: jmg3rd on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 18:21:33
You asked if anyone would believe a liar.  Jacob was a known liar.  Do you believe his testimony about God handed down through the Holy Nation of Israel and the OT?  If so, you'll quickly see how Jacob is an answer to your question.

Jacob was not a liar AFTER having wrestled with God ... nor after he walked with him the rest of his life.

Jacob was called a liar BEFORE God got ahold of him.

A Pope is supposed to be known as a man of truth.. but some of them have lived some VERY BIG LIES.

Not sure why that rant followed.

Quote from: spurly on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 18:31:20
Kensington, if you believe that Elisha, Elijah or any of the prophets were sinless, you are wrong.  If you believe that Paul was sinless after his conversion, you are wrong - see Romans 7.  God uses fallible people all the time.  Thank God that when we sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.  The goal is not to sin - but we will never perfectly reach that goal this side of heaven.

Exactly.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 18:39:33
Ok, um, I didn't defend the papacy, so that response doesn't make a whole of sense.  I answered the question about whether or not a known liar might possibly be able to spread truth at times. 

Quote from: kensington on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 18:26:14

Quote from: jmg3rd on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 18:21:33
You asked if anyone would believe a liar.  Jacob was a known liar.  Do you believe his testimony about God handed down through the Holy Nation of Israel and the OT?  If so, you'll quickly see how Jacob is an answer to your question.

Jacob was not a liar AFTER having wrestled with God ... nor after he walked with him the rest of his life.

Jacob was called a liar BEFORE God got ahold of him.

A Pope is supposed to be known as a man of truth.. but some of them have lived some VERY BIG LIES.

Not sure why that rant followed.

Oh... LOL.. That was not a rant!   I was putting emphasis on the fact that Jacob was known as a liar, He did not stay a liar. And after God changed his walk, he was a righteousness  man.

God being involved should change the life, the walk, and not give license or excuse to sin.  That was the point.  BEFORE and AFTER

Quote from: jmg3rd on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 18:40:09

Quote from: spurly on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 18:31:20
Kensington, if you believe that Elisha, Elijah or any of the prophets were sinless, you are wrong.  If you believe that Paul was sinless after his conversion, you are wrong - see Romans 7.  God uses fallible people all the time.  Thank God that when we sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.  The goal is not to sin - but we will never perfectly reach that goal this side of heaven.

Exactly.

So you agree... no sinful man is infallible? Thus the POPE cannot be infallible, especially those who have lived openly in the sins without repentance the sinful lives noted in this topic? 

NO MAN being infallible.

Quote from: spurly on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 18:31:20
Kensington, if you believe that Elisha, Elijah or any of the prophets were sinless, you are wrong.  If you believe that Paul was sinless after his conversion, you are wrong - see Romans 7.  God uses fallible people all the time.  Thank God that when we sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.  The goal is not to sin - but we will never perfectly reach that goal this side of heaven.

Paul was referring to how helpless the flesh is when fighting sin and how that he hated that sin.  That wasn't a picture of his saved life.

Kensington, I don't follow the pope but the argument that you are using to tear down the pope is a flawed argument.  You say that men who sin cannot be used of God.  That is completely, 100% wrong, the only people God uses are men and women who sin because he doesn't have anybody else he can use.  He used David even though he committed adultery and murdered a man.  He used the prophets even though they themselves had sin in their lives.  And he uses men and women today who still struggle with sin on a daily basis (and occasionally give in to the temptation to sin) for his glory.  We are all cracked pots, but his light shines through the cracks.

Bonnie, that wasn't just a picture of Paul before he was saved, that was also a picture after he was saved.  He was speaking of the battle that he had, even as a Christian.  None of us completely win the battle over the flesh on this side of eternity.  That's why we still need an advocate with the Father even after coming to Christ.  If anyone says he does not sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.

I've never believed in the infallability of papal decrees anywho, so I didn't need convincing anyway.   

----

Spurly posted while I had to get the phone.  What he said.

Thanks, Kensington.

Can you address this question:

Quote
*  Can a sinner be used to teach the truth? 

*  If so, can one who is not practicing what they preach (a hypocrite, in other words) teach the truth?  Note- not 'are they right with God?' but 'can they teach the truth?'

Thanks.

Quote from: spurly on Sat Apr 26, 2008 - 19:12:27
Kensington, I don't follow the pope but the argument that you are using to tear down the pope is a flawed argument.  You say that men who sin cannot be used of God.  That is completely, 100% wrong, the only people God uses are men and women who sin because he doesn't have anybody else he can use.  He used David even though he committed adultery and murdered a man.  He used the prophets even though they themselves had sin in their lives.  And he uses men and women today who still struggle with sin on a daily basis (and occasionally give in to the temptation to sin) for his glory.  We are all cracked pots, but his light shines through the cracks.

Bonnie, that wasn't just a picture of Paul before he was saved, that was also a picture after he was saved.  He was speaking of the battle that he had, even as a Christian.  None of us completely win the battle over the flesh on this side of eternity.  That's why we still need an advocate with the Father even after coming to Christ.  If anyone says he does not sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.

I think when comparing scripture anyone will see that Paul didn't promote a life of sin. The remainder of his writings don't back up that he did.  He grew more sure of his calling and work towards the end of his life.  He was probably the most humble apostle of them all,  yet I've seen people say he was arrogant because he stood on the Word that he preached.

I also see many using scripture out of context to make a point.  Can you agree that doing so will make the Bible say about anything you want it to?

Of course we have all sinned, I've never run onto anybody who claims that they haven't. Yet I see that verse used all the time and for what purpose I just don't know... unless it's used as a "license" to sin or back up a sinful life - which it doesn't do.

I think the point that Kensington is trying to make is if the Pope is sinning willfully then it is not Biblical that he be used in the capacity that he is.  WILLFUL means intentional and deliberate sin.  Yes, we all sin, but when we come to know Jesus, we are new creatures in Him and should not be walking in deliberate and intentional sin.   In the Biblical examples that have been used, all the men repented and didn't continue to walk in willful sin...so I am not sure what your point is, Spurly??

My point is that her argument is not theologically sound.  For more information, see my posts above.