Started By
Message
re: History/Religion question for those interested
Posted on 4/15/16 at 11:23 am to _Hurricane_
Posted on 4/15/16 at 11:23 am to _Hurricane_
quote:
I've always considered the position of pope as inherently sinful. Peter was the leader of the church, yes, but was never put up as more important spiritually than any other person.
Agree. Except for the fact that I don't think Peter nor the early church even considered him to be the leader. God was leading the early church, and I think everyone saw it that way. Peter, Paul, and others went around making sure many of the early churches did not go astray in their thinking, but never did anyone declare a human to be the "leader" of the church.
The Catholic church is literally what happened when Christianity was made the state religion of pagan Rome. Pagan practices were literally intertwined with church doctrine to produce all kinds of rituals that have no origin in the Bible.... including the position of pope itself.
While much of this was corrected under Martin Luther in the Protestant Reformation, still much persists today. While a modern day "pastor" doesn't distort church doctrine near to the same level as the position of "pope" in the Catholic church, many of the pastoral duties of protestant churches have gone down the same path. The word "Pastor" is only mentioned one time in the bible, and the biblical role of a pastor is to be simply a lead elder. No where does the Bible say that pastors get to be the sole decision maker and the sole person responsible for all teachings within a church. Like it or not, the role of a "pastor" has often evolved into being of little difference as the "pope" in the catholic church, only at a much smaller scale.
Go read the book "Pagan Christianity." It explains with detail how a lot of what people today consider to be normal everyday practices in the church actually have their roots in paganism. It's not a condescending book at all... and it was written by a Christian. It's not even really a criticism of modern church, just more of a historical account of where we got a lot of things in the church today.
1
Posted on 4/15/16 at 11:38 am to BHMKyle
Except that religious leaders were the norm throughout the Bible and even the New Testament includes books like Paul to the (Insert town here). Sounds a lot like religious instruction from respected leaders of Christianity of the time.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 11:59 am to GnashRebel
quote:
Except that religious leaders were the norm throughout the Bible and even the New Testament includes books like Paul to the (Insert town here). Sounds a lot like religious instruction from respected leaders of Christianity of the time.
Me writing a letter to a church doesn't make me the leader of that church... nor did it make Paul their "leader." God blessed Paul with a supernatural conversion, and he spoke through Paul in his letters to the various churches. Paul was without a doubt the most instrumental human since Jesus' ascension into Heaven when it comes to explaining the truth of the gospel. But that by no means made Paul the "leader."
Just as Peter wasn't the "leader" as someone else suggested.
quote:
So then, since we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe. This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin. So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most. - Hebrews 4:14-16
Jesus is our High Priest. He is our Leader. Not the pope. Not your pastor. Not any other human that for some reason we all seem to want to put on a spiritual pedestal. At the cross, Jesus removed any barrier that keeps us separated from God. The veil was torn, and we now have the ability to "boldly" approach the throne of God.
We are under no man's covering. No human is our "go-between" to God. Leadership in the church is fine, as long as it follows the scriptures. But I can't tell you how many times I've heard Christians say that they can or can't do something because it goes against their pastor's beliefs or warnings. What does GOD say about it? The pastor was given no spiritual authority or hierarchy for that matter. He is simply the lead elder who helps oversee some of the matters of the church.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 12:06 pm to BHMKyle
Let's consult the Bible. I think all people should be more like the people of Berea in Acts 17:11
Obviously this early church did not consider Paul to be the "leader" of the church. They viewed him as a teacher, whom God used to help teach his word. But they diligently searched the scriptures to make sure what Paul was teaching was truth.
If only Christians today did this. Some do, but sadly most don't.
quote:
And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. - Acts 17:11
Obviously this early church did not consider Paul to be the "leader" of the church. They viewed him as a teacher, whom God used to help teach his word. But they diligently searched the scriptures to make sure what Paul was teaching was truth.
If only Christians today did this. Some do, but sadly most don't.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 12:55 pm to _Hurricane_
Neither Henry, Thomas nor the Pope had the life experience to realize that God through man is corrupt, because man will not always turn from the temptation of power and greed.
I think there was value in both, the removal of the Church's authority and allowing the Church a vestige of its former authority. The people were not enlightened enough to realize that godliness may be achieve without the direction of the Church. However, if granted too much authority, then the corruption and greed would begin its seduction of the church again.
I think there was value in both, the removal of the Church's authority and allowing the Church a vestige of its former authority. The people were not enlightened enough to realize that godliness may be achieve without the direction of the Church. However, if granted too much authority, then the corruption and greed would begin its seduction of the church again.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 2:17 pm to BHMKyle
People have a VASTLY exaggerated idea of the role the Pope plays in the Catholic Church. I honestly can't really think of almost any times in my life he has had meaningful influence over my religious life.
You have to remember, there was a time when the Catholic Church was troubled by its lack of organization. Any Tom, Dick and Jane could teach the locals all kinds of stuff and doctrine was being shattered (Such as groups saying that Jesus was not divine). You also had disputes over Church property (bishops claiming they owned the church and land, could pass on to family, etc.) The organization of the Church helped to maintain a fairly coherent religion that has survived to this day. Look at what happened to Protestantism and the million different doctrines it spawned. Some believe in predestination, Mormons were birthed from others, you name it. Not saying one is right or wrong but from a practical perspective, the organized Church helped keep this thin afloat.
You have to remember, there was a time when the Catholic Church was troubled by its lack of organization. Any Tom, Dick and Jane could teach the locals all kinds of stuff and doctrine was being shattered (Such as groups saying that Jesus was not divine). You also had disputes over Church property (bishops claiming they owned the church and land, could pass on to family, etc.) The organization of the Church helped to maintain a fairly coherent religion that has survived to this day. Look at what happened to Protestantism and the million different doctrines it spawned. Some believe in predestination, Mormons were birthed from others, you name it. Not saying one is right or wrong but from a practical perspective, the organized Church helped keep this thin afloat.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 2:23 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
Obviously this early church did not consider Paul to be the "leader" of the church. They viewed him as a teacher, whom God used to help teach his word. But they diligently searched the scriptures to make sure what Paul was teaching was truth.
But they took his word as true and even added it to the Bible as divinely inspired. You call him a teacher, but he was swaying them in different directions. That is a leader. Your definition of Leader seems to be someone who is given blind obedience, which even a short review of Church evidence will make clear that the Pope has never enjoyed that. The Pope doesn't walk into my house with a club and tell me what to do. Honestly, he doesn't do much to sway people other than encouraging people to behave in ways that mirror the life of Christ.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 2:43 pm to GnashRebel
quote:
The Pope doesn't walk into my house with a club and tell me what to do. Honestly, he doesn't do much to sway people other than encouraging people to behave in ways that mirror the life of Christ.
Take a walk through the Vatican and notice the TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars worth of art and artifacts that have accumulated over time and its hard to ignore the amount of sheer power that the Vatican accrued for 1500 years or so. The Pope didn't get that giant walled palace and all of its artifacts just by "encouraging people to behave in ways that mirror the life of Christ."
It's very difficult to convince people that the pope really doesn't have a whole lot of power or clout when the Vatican sits on all that wealth. You don't accumulate all that on your ability to be an encouragement to others.
quote:
You call him a teacher, but he was swaying them in different directions.
Was he a "leader" in terms of personality? Yes. Did he hold a "leadership" position? No. There are people in this world who are true "leaders" who never hold an important title or place of power. So yes, in that sense, Paul was a "leader."
But Paul nor any other early church Christian held a title or a place of superiority in terms of their role as a "spiritual advisor", etc. Yes, God used Paul to teach and spread the gospel. But the word is very clear that Jesus Christ is our high priest. No man should hold that title of which belongs to Christ.
The pastor at my church may be a "leader" in terms of his personality, and he may deliver a message about the gospel of Christ on a Sunday. But other than being a "lead elder" in our church, he does not have a hierarchy over me or anyone in the church in terms of his ability to hear from God. God gives his spirit to all of his children. We decipher how the spirit leads us through prayer, the word of God, and listening to his spirit. And yes, God can use a pastor to teach and deliver a word from God. But he can just as often use the person sitting next to me at church to do the same thing.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 2:48 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
he does not have a hierarchy over me or anyone in the church in terms of his ability to hear from God
Neither does the Pope. People have a lot of misconceptions of Catholic doctrine, including many Catholics.
If you want me to defend the worldly excess of some Popes than you can continue to wait. But I could also bring up all of the corrupt pastors through history.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 3:57 pm to GnashRebel
quote:
Neither does the Pope.
One of the chief dogmas of the Catholic church is "Papal Infallibility" that essentially says that the pope cannot be wrong. He is preserved from the possibility of error. That is the official stance of the Vatican.
Now if that isn't granting him a hierarchy over the ordinary member of the church, I don't know what is.
quote:
If you want me to defend the worldly excess of some Popes than you can continue to wait. But I could also bring up all of the corrupt pastors through history.
Yes of course you can. That is the danger of putting any person on a pedestal when it comes to faith. I have in recent years become more aware of the abuse of power that goes on in the church, and how the modern day "pastor" fulfills a role in most of our churches that is not even close to biblical.
Posted on 4/16/16 at 11:13 am to BHMKyle
Papal infallibility is reserved for when he is speaking ex cathedra or from the chair of Peter. It's been used less than 10 times in 2000 years. Usually it relates to doctrinal things like the immaculate conception. Protestants have it easy because the church cleared up all the crazy shite like catharism and Arianism long before they showed up on the scene. Not to mention converting the pagans. Can you imagine the balls on a missionary trying to convert a Viking whose last name was skullsplitter to Christianity ?
Posted on 4/16/16 at 12:17 pm to _Hurricane_
Back then, the way the power structure worked was that the Pope was the king of all Christians, the King of Kings. Kings of kingdoms ruled by "divine right" and were typically crowned by The Pope. Basically, their power flowed from the Pope.
Also, the Vatican and the church owned much of the land that the king and his nobles didn't own.
Siding against the church meant ex-communication. Once you were ex-communicated, the Pope would back rival nobles to defeat you. Basically, he was afraid for his soul as well as for his own skin.
Also, the Vatican and the church owned much of the land that the king and his nobles didn't own.
Siding against the church meant ex-communication. Once you were ex-communicated, the Pope would back rival nobles to defeat you. Basically, he was afraid for his soul as well as for his own skin.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News