PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

[JimmyB]

56 minutes ago, B Judson said:

 

 

The Father never went out to look for him!  There's no evidence of that in Jesus' teaching.  And the Father was not supporting him in any way either. (wasn't sending money or people out to look for him)

 

He wanted the son to come back and waited for the son to come back... but since the son decided on his own to leave, it's the son's responsibility to decide to come back.

The son was not just a lost sheep... he made the conscience decision to leave the Father and the Father let him go

The father was looking for him.  If you don't understand the meaning of the word it means directing one's gaze toward someone or something or in a specified direction, which is exactly what the father was doing.

You must be young, since you equate supporting someone with going after them and/or giving the money. Of course, the text doesn't address that; it is in your mind.

And you write "He wanted the son to come back and waited for the son to come back... but since the son decided on his own to leave, it's the son's responsibility to decide to come back "  and "he made the conscience decision to leave the Father and the Father let him go".  Oh really?  Why state the obvious?

It concerns me that you have missed some of the key points of the parable.  Look for them, then we can discuss the subject further.

[B Judson]

Luke 15:24

For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.

 

Jesus specifically said... the prodigal son was dead while he was away having turned his back on the Father.

 

During this time, this guy was not saved and did not have the life of the Father in him.  He was lost!  What part of what Jesus said would you like to deny?

The Father had expectation and the hope that his son would return and in this sense yes he was looking for his son.

There is NO evidence in scripture showing the Father (who was a wealthy man) sent people out to search for his son!  There's NO evidence that the Father himself traveled around looking for his son!

Your eisegisis is failing you badly now... you cannot read in to scripture things the scripture does not say - unless of course you are one of those adherents to the false calvinist / reformed theology teachings

[other one]

5 hours ago, B Judson said:

 

 

Wow!  Thanks!

 

This means I can go back to getting drunk, chasing women, and living in all the sin I want and still go to Heaven!

 

I don't mind that my mansion in Heaven may be smaller than others because I lived like the devil....

 

Glad you set me straight and shared "the truth" which makes it clear I can go live in sin like the world and still be saved!

It seems you missed part of that person's post you quoted.  

Quote

What is more accurate in scripture is that one is saved with the life of God in them eternally.

If one is saved with the life of God in them (Holy Spirit) they would never do as you say here, and you know it.

[B Judson]

And yet we see lots of folks out there doing grevious sin before the Lord... and they claim to be Christians and you claim the Holy Spirit is dwelling in them...

Obviously you do not believe Romans 8 among other passages.

 

Quote

It seems you missed part of that person's post you quoted.  

 No, "consequences for the believer" who turns their back on God to go do sin is... separation from God, they die spiritually!  You cannot abide IN Christ and do sin at the same time.

In the end, you believe that once a person is born again they will end up in Heaven no matter if they live like the devil... and that is satanic doctrine!

Edited July 16, 2023 by B Judson

[Daniel Marsh]

On 4/9/2018 at 9:55 PM, KiwiChristian said:

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY (declared in 1870 AD).

Definition: When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, meaning without error.

Answer: The apostles never regarded any man to be infallible. Only the Word of God is regarded as without error.

If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

The following events from history show the error of papal infallibility.

1. Pope John XII, in the "Liber Pontificalis," the Catholic publication discussing the lives of the popes, states that "He spent his entire life in adultery."

2. Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility.

3. Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead pope Formosus (891-6) tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through Rome and thrown into the Tiber river.

4. Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-23) declared it to be invalid.

5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint.

6. Pope Pius XI in 1929 endorsed Fascism and called Mussolini "a man sent by God." However, before World War II, he warned people against Mussolini.

7. The Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a concordat, where the Catholic church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on Pope Pius XI condemned Hitler.

How can a supposedly infallible man make so many errors of judgment, and even contradict other so-called infallible popes? 

Surely this disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open minded
person.

Poor judgement does not negate, infallibility when it comes to declaring doctrine.    Solmon was the wisest man alive and yet he made many errors in judgement.  Practicing Church disaplenie is not declaring doctrine. 

[Daniel Marsh]

skipped to here

[all hearts rejoice]

Does not the entire premise of  Papal  Infallibility  demonstrate a display of  circular  reasoning.

 

who  or  what  decides  exactly  what   teachings,  doctrines  and  comments  are  truly delegated from the chair of St Peter 

what is it that  suddenly enthrones  or  dethrones  the  Vatican  Primates  from  this chair   -   from one second to the next  ?

[Daniel Marsh]

7 hours ago, all hearts rejoice said:

Does not the entire premise of  Papal  Infallibility  demonstrate a display of  circular  reasoning.

 

who  or  what  decides  exactly  what   teachings,  doctrines  and  comments  are  truly delegated from the chair of St Peter 

what is it that  suddenly enthrones  or  dethrones  the  Vatican  Primates  from  this chair   -   from one second to the next  ?

I am guessing Counsels of Bishops.

[Big Boy Stan Murf]

On 4/9/2018 at 8:55 PM, KiwiChristian said:

The Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a concordat, where the Catholic church swore allegiance to the Nazi government.

And... the same thing will happen when the anti-christ gets here.

Many of these end times guys think the catholics pope will be the false prophet.

[other one]

8 hours ago, Stan Murff said:

And... the same thing will happen when the anti-christ gets here.

Many of these end times guys think the catholics pope will be the false prophet.

I know some catholics who think he will be the antichrist.   Something to do with the catholic prophecy of the Popes.  I never could put the two together, but we all have our ideas.