Dairygirl's Large/Influential Church Theory

[dairygirl4u2c]

see, an arrogant stephen could easily take his role as leader, whether it was an intended role or not, and start asserting that he is the leader and they should follow.
it's not necessarily the case that he was even exerting in an infallible sense, jsut that he was asserting in a leading sense. so, his exertion of power, which itself is claimed by catholics to be proof of the church, is not even necessarily an infallible way. but if not, it certainly paved the way for popes to start claiming more frivilous power.

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1408482' date='Oct 24 2007, 10:45 AM']the way i look at it. if "no salvation outside..." looks like a contradictoin, and there's no evidence from that time to back it up, i'd tend to defer to it bseing a contradiction, unless there's other evidence.[/quote]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, do you mind rephrasing?


[quote]as to the Peter verses etc. there are many ways to interpret them.[/quote]

Ok, but what is your interpretation and why do you feel it is the best interpretation?

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1408490' date='Oct 24 2007, 10:53 AM']see, an arrogant stephen could easily take his role as leader, whether it was an intended role or not, and start asserting that he is the leader and they should follow.[/quote]

Have you read Apotheon's comments, posts #13 and #16 in particular?

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes i did. rereading it, i appreciate how much they were wise posts. anachronistic perspectives etc. it's a good argument, but we still have to face the facts of what we read.

i admit there was hints at infalliblity in early cyprian. you have to admit there was resistance the whole time though with cyprian and firmilian etc.

bottomline, if there's evidence against the church, you can't say that bc of anachronistic theories that we should jsut brush it off. this all goes to the development stuff i quoted a couple posts back, about the acorn etc, and whether God or man made.
bottomline again, it's not clear. but, i think it'd be clearer than it is.

i base my interpretation on reason. i cannot assume the CC is true, to guide me in discerning whether the CC is true, when there is this much uncertainty. it begs the question, or something.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i was saying... there's no evidence to back up a lenient version of "no salvation outside..." from the 1000-1500 period. time periods before and after that do not count, other than to propose how they MIGHT be reconciable. the plain reading of them, as justice scalia would say (not intent, not that this is law) is that their is absolutely no salvation, which is ironically what the popes themselves said.
sorry i didn't make that clear.

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1409414' date='Oct 25 2007, 10:11 PM']i base my interpretation on reason. i cannot assume the CC is true, to guide me in discerning whether the CC is true, when there is this much uncertainty. it begs the question, or something.[/quote]

I don't know if your position is one of sola scriptura, but you seem to be saying scripture is not sufficient in explaining itself on this matter.

I'm curious as to what your reason tells you is the correct interpretation of Matthew 16, do you mind sharing?

Lastly, if you're saying you wont accept the doctrine of Infallibility because it's understanding has developed over the centuries, I'm curious as to why you accept the Bible. The Bible canon was not a well documented list of uniform books passed down since the beginning, in fact there was dispute and disagreements over what was considered inspired, ultimately a Church council settled the dispute. But even today there are scholars that say the whole history of the bible is uncertain, we don't know *for sure* that the apostle John wrote the Gospel of John, and so on. It's reported that the new testament writings were not even considered inspired among the early Christians, and that this developed as time passed. Now it would seem to be consistent you would have to reject the bible on this account, but you obviously don't. What's your comment on this?

[dairygirl4u2c]

if i were a believer in an infallible bible, i'd argue there are no contradictions in what's been developed, where as with the CC there are contradictions, apparently. it's not just that it developed, but how.
the bible is the formation of God acting at one time through his people. it could be that he's working through his people inteh CC still, but not necessarily. the bible, it would be argued, is just that important? how do i know? the bible says the bible is important, and that's what i just beleive, even though it does not disprove the CC.

but with that said, i tend to not believe the bible is infallible, just inspired. that's a long thread in itself. the people thought the bible books were worthy of inclusion, so they probably are. i read them with a critical eye, and don't necessarily reject nonbiblical books. reason and the spirit, as i see them, is all i can do.
i am not a typical protestant.

as i said. here is my interpretation of matthew 16, a reserved view.
[quote]as to the Peter verses etc. there are many ways to interpret them. why would i assume the CC's version is correct given the historical evidence as i just described? one way is to say that it was peter's confession of faith. one way is to say that Peter was simply given a role in a relationship, much like a pastor/priest. they are a leader, but not in an infallible sense. if this were the case, the role might have simply been for them as a group, as groups need leaders, but not beyond them, necessarily. or, if it was intended to go beyond them, then the CC excommunicated itself with all its claims, from the orthodox and others. (this is how it isn't whacked to say the church departed from where it was suppose to go. the pope would simply be in error from his true role, but he can still be respected etc. if you want to make that argument, as i'd suspect the orthodox might. )
it's easy to see how the CC could have grown man made into what it is now. cue newman's comments on development.[/quote]

i'd err on saying it was his confession of faith, the first person to confess faith, and from that the church was built. you start a church building with a single rock on the bottom. of course, techincally not all rocks are on top of that one, but don't be too techincal it's just an analogy.
how do i know for sure? i don't. that's life, but i'm okay with that. but for me, and others, to ask for more is being unrealistic.

Edited October 27, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1410101' date='Oct 27 2007, 11:15 AM']but with that said, i tend to not believe the bible is infallible, just inspired.[/quote]

If the bible contains non-truths, why do you believe it's inspired? How can God inspire something error prone?

[Winchester]

What necromancer dragged this thing back into the light?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]If the bible contains non-truths, why do you believe it's inspired? How can God inspire something error prone?[/quote]

the same way God works through any sinner. his people are inspired when they speak or act for him. that does not mean they do not say something wrong, or sinful even.
you can generally be inspired, but not be perfect.
works there, and with the bible.

good example. even priests and pastors are inspired when they bring sermons to the people. yet, you have to take what they say with a critical eye, cause they are sinners and human, prone to error, even when they are on fire and inspired. i look at the bible like that on fire and inspired preacher/priest.

Edited October 29, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c