Re: Who speaks for the Christian Church/Churches?
Posted: Mon Feb 29, 2016 3:50 pm
Who is IceMobster? Perhaps you're referring to LiceLobster?Kurieuo wrote:Well, so long as IceMobster isn't being graded by this guy, I see no harm.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Who is IceMobster? Perhaps you're referring to LiceLobster?Kurieuo wrote:Well, so long as IceMobster isn't being graded by this guy, I see no harm.
Why would it be a cult just because it has a leader? I understand, because it says that the leader is infallible in his teachings, but I disagree with that, as well. Hell, even the CC addresses and points this out showing where in the history that point didn't stand (i.e. Saeculum obscurum).Kurieuo wrote:Well then, considering the supremacy of the Pope, maybe we should call it the Roman Catholic Cult? Ask your professor what he thinks of that.IceMobster wrote:Well, my theology professor is a main guy in desk of Church history on a theology university, so I'll take his words over yours when he says that pope is the supreme head of all Catholics which is why it would be preferred to say CC and not RCC (as written in the wiki link Rick linked: "To refer to all 24 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope) together, official church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church".")
There IceMobster. Fify.IceMobster wrote:Why would it be a cult just because it has a leader? I understand, because it says that the leader is infallible in his teachings, but I disagree with that, as well. Hell, even the RCC addresses and points this out showing where in the history that point didn't stand (i.e. Saeculum obscurum).Kurieuo wrote:Well then, considering the supremacy of the Pope, maybe we should call it the Roman Catholic Cult? Ask your professor what he thinks of that.IceMobster wrote:Well, my theology professor is a main guy in desk of Church history on a theology university, so I'll take his words over yours when he says that pope is the supreme head of all Catholics which is why it would be preferred to say CC and not RCC (as written in the wiki link Rick linked: "To refer to all 24 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope) together, official church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church".")
Also, there is no need to be cocky as such. Forsake not the assembling of one another in Christ.
RickD wrote:There IceMobster. Fify.IceMobster wrote:Why would it be a cult just because it has a leader? I understand, because it says that the leader is infallible in his teachings, but I disagree with that, as well. Hell, even the RCC addresses and points this out showing where in the history that point didn't stand (i.e. Saeculum obscurum).Kurieuo wrote:Well then, considering the supremacy of the Pope, maybe we should call it the Roman Catholic Cult? Ask your professor what he thinks of that.IceMobster wrote:Well, my theology professor is a main guy in desk of Church history on a theology university, so I'll take his words over yours when he says that pope is the supreme head of all Catholics which is why it would be preferred to say CC and not RCC (as written in the wiki link Rick linked: "To refer to all 24 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope) together, official church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church".")
Also, there is no need to be cocky as such. Forsake not the assembling of one another in Christ.
There are some core Catholic teachings that go against what I see Christ and the Apostles taught.IceMobster wrote:Why would it be a cult just because it has a leader? I understand, because it says that the leader is infallible in his teachings, but I disagree with that, as well. Hell, even the CC addresses and points this out showing where in the history that point didn't stand (i.e. Saeculum obscurum).Kurieuo wrote:Well then, considering the supremacy of the Pope, maybe we should call it the Roman Catholic Cult? Ask your professor what he thinks of that.IceMobster wrote:Well, my theology professor is a main guy in desk of Church history on a theology university, so I'll take his words over yours when he says that pope is the supreme head of all Catholics which is why it would be preferred to say CC and not RCC (as written in the wiki link Rick linked: "To refer to all 24 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope) together, official church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church".")
Also, there is no need to be cocky as such. Forsake not the assembling of one another in Christ.
Yeah, I agree with most, if not all, of the things you said here. I'll get back to you once I hear what other side has to say on the matter. But, in general, yeah, why should there be a intercessor in your connection with God is my biggest question. As if you are dumb enough to manage it yourself. Meh...Kurieuo wrote:There are some core Catholic teachings that go against what I see Christ and the Apostles taught.IceMobster wrote:Why would it be a cult just because it has a leader? I understand, because it says that the leader is infallible in his teachings, but I disagree with that, as well. Hell, even the CC addresses and points this out showing where in the history that point didn't stand (i.e. Saeculum obscurum).Kurieuo wrote:Well then, considering the supremacy of the Pope, maybe we should call it the Roman Catholic Cult? Ask your professor what he thinks of that.IceMobster wrote:Well, my theology professor is a main guy in desk of Church history on a theology university, so I'll take his words over yours when he says that pope is the supreme head of all Catholics which is why it would be preferred to say CC and not RCC (as written in the wiki link Rick linked: "To refer to all 24 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope) together, official church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church".")
Also, there is no need to be cocky as such. Forsake not the assembling of one another in Christ.
The Christian ecclesiology that developed in Rome was largely human-made, and imo was instituted by men wanting something "substantial" to rival Judaism which had its priests, rituals and rich ecclesiology. People, just seem to love the comfort of ritual and practice (works) rather than the grace and freedom we have in Christ through the power and reliance upon the Holy Spirit.
So, early on, you have the might of Rome which gave the Christians in Rome a higher standing especially under Constantine. The Roman Catholic Church gained (or is it more usurped) authority over the other Christian churches, even those in the east which initially reluctantly agreed to Rome's universal jurisdiction over Christian matters, that is, until the East-West schism in the 11th century.
Thankfully, Jesus' followers, the Apostles, were responsible for laying foundational teachings. Furthermore, they had spiritual gifts which no other since have had in same strength -- no Pope, no priest, no Christian. You need to dig into the Christian theology to understand why I'd deem the RCC a cult in that they wrongly usurp authority. In my opinion, I see not much difference between embracing The Watchtower or the RCC -- besides the Watchtower having less orthodox teachings -- the church authorities in Rome just set themselves up first.
Now, that's not withstanding I have a respect for Christian brothers and sisters who are nonetheless for whatever reason Catholic. Some are very intelligent and do understand their theology. However, given the RCC is quite contented for people to just have a relationship with the church, sees itself as the way people are patched through to Christ and God as such, then I see they are usurping Christ's authority and indeed that of the Holy Spirit.
Some corrupted Christian teachings include:
1) Apostolic succession: the Apostles laid the foundations, there is no longer need for additional foundation laying. Scripture contains the Apostles words in writing. Once the foundation is laid, there is no need for building the foundation out further right? Scripture nowhere says that the foundations will continue being laid through anything such as Apostolic succession (i.e., the Pope). Scripture is that foundation, Jesus' and the Apostles words and other teachings they gave the stamp of approval are that foundation. The NT books we have, rightfully form our Biblical canon, because they could be traced back to the Apostles and therefore they're granted foundational authority. Where Catholic teaching or tradition would contradict Scripture therefore, the Apostolic authority (Scripture) carries greater weight. More than that of any RCC declared Pope.
2) Priestly order: Jesus is and was the ultimate priest, the final and everlasting. There is no need for a priestly order. One does not need to go to a / the church for forgiveness. One is not saved on account of some church or religious authority. Despite whatever apologetic response Catholic theologians might give, these are great misunderstandings even amongst lay Catholics who see the Roman Church as the way to God, who believe their sins are absolved by priests and what-not, who see people as lost and non-Christian if they do not submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
How this differs to the teachings we find in Scripture, that is only through Christ we attain forgiveness and can approach God in anything. Christ is the final, eternal and perfect Priest (read Hebrews 10, esp. Heb 10:12,14). Christ is always the channel with which we come to God. Through Christ we pray and our prayers reach God's ears. We worship God through Christ. Christ is central in every way in our relationship with God. A person doesn't have Christ via the church, some leader or organisation -- but must be baptised personally into Christ and the Holy Spirit now teaches and guides that person. (Jer 31:31-34)
3) Saints: All of us who belong to Christ, have been called by God. We have been set apart, and made holy in Christ. (Rom 1:7) Sainthood isn't reserved for "special Christians" who display certain acts and miracles, but rather all who are in Christ are saints. Christians have ALL been called and we belong to Christ. We are holy -- (hagios, "set apart by (or for) God"). Those who belong to Christ, are the saints.
Here are just a few theological doctrines that really only skim the surface, and when worked out, lead to all manner of corruptions in ecclesiology, teachings and how people believe they come to God.
IceMobster, have a read of my essay I wrote some time ago now on sources of theology. I studied for a time within non-Evangelical colleges Uniting, Anglican and RCC (who had temporarily come together to form the one college).IceMobster wrote:Hmm, what about the sacred tradition? The oral tradition passed on through generations which the CC cherishes? What are the things protestants (looks like you are one, yeah?) leave out when they leave out this oral tradition? Teach me, senpai. Lol.
Or ask any Old Catholic or Eastern Orthodox catholic.Kurieuo wrote:Well then, considering the supremacy of the Pope, maybe we should call it the Roman Catholic Cult? Ask your professor what he thinks of that.IceMobster wrote:Well, my theology professor is a main guy in desk of Church history on a theology university, so I'll take his words over yours when he says that pope is the supreme head of all Catholics which is why it would be preferred to say CC and not RCC (as written in the wiki link Rick linked: "To refer to all 24 autonomous churches (all of which are subject to the Pope) together, official church documents often use the term "Catholic Church" or, less frequently, the term "Roman Catholic Church".")
Kurieuo wrote: There are some core Catholic teachings that go against what I see Christ and the Apostles taught.
The Christian ecclesiology that developed in Rome was largely human-made, and imo was instituted by men wanting something "substantial" to rival Judaism which had its priests, rituals and rich ecclesiology. People, just seem to love the comfort of ritual and practice (works) rather than the grace and freedom we have in Christ through the power and reliance upon the Holy Spirit.
So, early on, you have the might of Rome which gave the Christians in Rome a higher standing especially under Constantine. The Roman Catholic Church gained (or is it more usurped) authority over the other Christian churches, even those in the east which initially reluctantly agreed to Rome's universal jurisdiction over Christian matters, that is, until the East-West schism in the 11th century.
Thankfully, Jesus' followers, the Apostles, were responsible for laying foundational teachings. Furthermore, they had spiritual gifts which no other since have had in same strength -- no Pope, no priest, no Christian. You need to dig into the Christian theology to understand why I'd deem the RCC a cult in that they wrongly usurp authority. In my opinion, I see not much difference between embracing The Watchtower or the RCC -- besides the Watchtower having less orthodox teachings -- the church authorities in Rome just set themselves up first.
Now, that's not withstanding I have a respect for Christian brothers and sisters who are nonetheless for whatever reason Catholic. Some are very intelligent and do understand their theology. However, given the RCC is quite contented for people to just have a relationship with the church, sees itself as the way people are patched through to Christ and God as such, then I see they are usurping Christ's authority and indeed that of the Holy Spirit.
Some corrupted Christian teachings include:
1) Apostolic succession: the Apostles laid the foundations, there is no longer need for additional foundation laying. Scripture contains the Apostles words in writing. Once the foundation is laid, there is no need for building the foundation out further right? Scripture nowhere says that the foundations will continue being laid through anything such as Apostolic succession (i.e., the Pope). Scripture is that foundation, Jesus' and the Apostles words and other teachings they gave the stamp of approval are that foundation. The NT books we have, rightfully form our Biblical canon, because they could be traced back to the Apostles and therefore they're granted foundational authority. Where Catholic teaching or tradition would contradict Scripture therefore, the Apostolic authority (Scripture) carries greater weight. More than that of any RCC declared Pope.
2) Priestly order: Jesus is and was the ultimate priest, the final and everlasting. There is no need for a priestly order. One does not need to go to a / the church for forgiveness. One is not saved on account of some church or religious authority. Despite whatever apologetic response Catholic theologians might give, these are great misunderstandings even amongst lay Catholics who see the Roman Church as the way to God, who believe their sins are absolved by priests and what-not, who see people as lost and non-Christian if they do not submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
How this differs to the teachings we find in Scripture, that is only through Christ we attain forgiveness and can approach God in anything. Christ is the final, eternal and perfect Priest (read Hebrews 10, esp. Heb 10:12,14). Christ is always the channel with which we come to God. Through Christ we pray and our prayers reach God's ears. We worship God through Christ. Christ is central in every way in our relationship with God. A person doesn't have Christ via the church, some leader or organisation -- but must be baptised personally into Christ and the Holy Spirit now teaches and guides that person. (Jer 31:31-34)
3) Saints: All of us who belong to Christ, have been called by God. We have been set apart, and made holy in Christ. (Rom 1:7) Sainthood isn't reserved for "special Christians" who display certain acts and miracles, but rather all who are in Christ are saints. Christians have ALL been called and we belong to Christ. We are holy -- (hagios, "set apart by (or for) God"). Those who belong to Christ, are the saints.
Here are just a few theological doctrines that really only skim the surface, and when worked out, lead to all manner of corruptions in ecclesiology, teachings and how people believe they come to God.
I agree. In order to do this we must have a good knowledge of Scriptures and it is our responsibility to study them.abelcainsbrother wrote:It is every believers responsibility to make sure they are being taught sound doctrine according to the word of God. The bible warns us alot about false teachers,false prophets,false doctrine,etc.I know that alot of believers seem to rely on their preacher, a minister,ministry,etc and just trust their biblical knowledge,but ultimately it is every person's responsibility to make sure they are being taught sound Christian doctrine that lines up with God's word. This applies to everybody too really, even non-believers.Christian2 wrote:Is there some kind of control over Christians making sure they interpret Scriptures correctly?
I would think the Pope would oversee the Roman Catholic Church, but what about the others?
Thanks.