How To Read and Understand The Bible

[NotWorthy]

No.

See thread: Can a Priest Forgive Sins

Ginger, I see a post of yours that says a priest cannot forgive sins. I don’t wish to read through numerous posts to determine what your answer is to the specific question that I asked you (And Ed, btw).

Its a simple question… "Did Christ give the Apostles the authority to forgive sins in His Name"?

Let’s go over the verses one more time, just to refresh your memory:

(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."*** 22 *** And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.*** 23 *** Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

Some of the things to ponder:a) As the Father has sent Jesus to bring forgiveness to the World, it seems Jesus is sending the Apostles.b) They are receiving the Holy Spirit, to accompany this gift.c) The Apostles have the authority both to forgive and not to forgive sins.This is in stark contrast to what Jesus tells the masses. If a simple believer doesn’t forgive someone, than how can he expect the Father to forgive him?

Hence, this tells us that the gift Jesus is giving the Apostles is somehow different.

Now, Ginger, "Did Christ give the Apostles the authority to forgive sins in His Name or not"?

 

[Ginger2]

Now, Ginger, "Did Christ give the Apostles the authority to forgive sins in His Name or not"?

No. But I am too tired and in too much pain with my sprained ankle to go over it all again tonight.

Have a great weekend.

 

[CWBetts]

OK, if you say so.

I really don’t know where it originated, only that Catholics is where I heard it from and they used it to “prove” the Jews removed books and the catholic bible is complete.

Ginger

wow. What a reasoned argument. Nothing to say, so just respond with a smiley and pass the buck…which you have no excuse for. Check facts before you accept them.

 

[NotWorthy]

No. But I am too tired and in too much pain with my sprained ankle to go over it all again tonight.

Have a great weekend.

I’m sorry about your ankle. As I mentioned, I broke both legs in a wreck 3 years ago and couldn’t walk for 10 weeks. I feel your pain.

When you do feel betther, please explain what it is that Jesus means by, “What sins YOU forgive, they are forgiven. What sins YOU retain, they are retained”. That’s rather bizarre to claim that Jesus didn’t mean what He said.

 

[guanophore]

Hmmm…, but Matthew says that the Jews praised God for giving this power to forgive sins to MEN (in the healing of the paralytic).

Which men? Why?

You have a big problem. There’s nothing here that suggests a pre-figurement of the N.T. priesthood.

You don’t find the book of Hebrews “suggestive” about the NT priesthood? That is astonishing.

What about the Apostolic Teaching that what was written was done for our instruction? Is that not “suggestive”?

Those people brought animal sacrifices for the priest to kill on the altar and offer it to God for various sins. That was the system God ordained for them. God was so precise, even to what clothing that the priests should wear. Being that precise, nowhere in the O.T. does God tell the priests to hear confessions. They NEVER CONFESSED THEIR SINS TO A PRIEST!

Lev 5:4-6
5 When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, 6 and he shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD for the sin which he has committed…

Num 5:5-7
6 "Say to the people of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins that men commit by breaking faith with the LORD, and that person is guilty, 7 he shall confess his sin which he has committed; and he shall make full restitution for his wrong…

How do you imagine that the priest knew if the guilty party had fulfilled the Law?

.

Since you  AGREE that John 20:23 is the same as Mat 18:18 would you please explain to me what Mat 18:18 means.  What is being bound?

It is a legal term, including, among other things, the power to legislate. People are bound by their sins, unless and until they are released.

Would you explain how the Holy Spirit comes and goes, comes and goes, comes and goes?

It seems you are asking about how a person can come and go from a state of grace.

I Here is your PROBLEM! – Big problem at that too! – John 19:30 at the cross Jesus said, “IT IS FINISHED” and bowed His head. What is finished?

The fourth cup of the Passover.

The animal sacrifice system which required priests to kill the animals to offer to God. And to make sure that you understand that, in Mat 27:52 the CURTAIN that partitioned the Holy of Holies room, that only the High Priest could enter only annually, ripped from top to bottom. Jesus is now our High Priest in heaven. His sacrifice was a ONCE for ALL time.

It is very Catholic of you to point all this out!

No more animals to kill, no more priests are needed. --

The fact that Jesus’ once for all sacrifice means that there are no more animals needed does not mean that His priesthood is abolished. The fact that He draws people into His priesthood and ministerial service is foreshadowed in the OT.

1Peter 2:9 the first Pope states,” But you are a chosen people, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD---- people belonging to God." That's ME! Hallelujah! Paul states in 1 Cor 12:28, And in the church God has appointed,---apostles,---prohets,---teachers,---workers of miracles,--- those with gifts of healing,---administrators,---some speak in tongues. No priests! Ed O.

All believers are part of the “royal priesthood”. In the OT, there is a High Priest, Ministerial priests, and the priesthood of the nation. This forshadows the NT.

The word “priest” is a Latinization of the Gk. word “presbyter”. When you study the duties of the presybter in the NT, you will quickly see that they are the same as the modern day priest.

 

[guanophore]

You might have a point** IF** the disciples had been given this power before this particular event. But since the power to forgive which you claim was given them, was not yet given, your argument fails.

No, Ginger2, this is not the case. The Apostle is writing this some 60 years after the events. The reason he uses the word “men” instead of “man” (in reference to only Jesus) is that the Apostle is clear that Jesus drew all of them into His own priesthood. He had been hearing confessions and giving absolution for decades. He knew exactly what he was writing.

Furthermore, the people made this statement in response to the miracle of healing, not the act of forgiving.

The most “telling” statement is made by Jesus when he says, “… that you may know that** the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins**”

Notice Jesus says “son of man” - singular!!!

Well, of course! there is only one Great High Priest! The only reason that those He has commissioned have this authority is because He gives it to them. This is what He was doing when He said “whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained”. He passes them the authority that belongs to Him.

For Clarification, See: Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD;

Ginger

The priest, when acting in the person of Christ, does not hear confessions in separation from God. Just as in the OT, the person seeking atonement approaches God through the priest.

 

[guanophore]

lol

Are you are suggesting Matthew told a lie about what the people did and thought in order to convince the reader of a doctrine that, according to you, would be established in the future?

Not a bit! The NT authors are writing 20+ years after the events. They are looking at them through the lens of Sacred Tradition. The reason Catholics understand the scriptures differently is because we look at them thorogh that same lens. This is the lens rejected by the Reformers,and inherited by their offspring (Protestants).

Matthew is relaying the response of the eyewitnesses at the time of the actual event.  You seem to be suggesting Matthew would fudge on the facts to convince the reader of future events.

If you are correct, how can anyone ever be certain whether the Apostle’s stories are factual or simply fabricated attempts to make others believe what they want us to believe?

Yes, the Gospels are indeed eyewitness accounts. However, they are written decades after the events. They can best be understood as the early church reflecting back through her own experience upon what occurred, and what it meant.

The writers do confess that the purpose of their writing is to “make others believe what they want us to believe”. They are evangelistic, and they represent the doctrine and practices of the Church. That is why they cannot be properly understood apart from the doctrines and practices of the church.

You are suggesting the Apostles wrote lies about past events to convince people to follow them. Do you really think God would approve of such tactics????

Ginger

God allows all kinds of things of which He does not approve. He allows people like you to reject the authority He appointed and attempt to understand His Holy Word in isolation from the Church He founded.

 

[Ginger2]

You are wrong on several points.

First, the gathering at Jamnia was not a “council” in the Catholic sense of the word.

Second, the gathering did occur despite your assertion that it did not.

Third, Protestants authors have been advancing Jamnia against the Catholic canon; this is well-documented. Ray’s article states:
…

Excuse me! You are wrong.

First, I agree there was no council. But Catholics insisted there was, so most of the time I gave in and argued from a point of "if the council existed, Jews would not have removed books they believed inspired to deny Jesus because they could deny without removing books

Second, A gathering occurred, but** a gathering of a Jewish council did not occur**

Third, My experience is that Protestants have been trying to correct the false Catholic claim of “The Council of Jamnia”

This is the most amazing claim I have seen from Catholics!!! In my own forum Catholics brought up Jamnia in several threads… Never once did a Protestant mention it first.

Protestants responded to the Catholics false claims about Jews removing books.

Catholics claimed the Jewish canon was not set until Jamnia. Protestant claimed the Jewish canon was closed before Christ.

I love this turn around that states there was no Council of Jamnia. But I despise this false accusation that Protestants invented a the myth.

Go ahead deceive yourselves. Change your stories as the wind changes direction. But don’t expect me to play along with your fantasies. I never even heard about Jamnia before Catholics started telling me it proved their canon because Jews removed the books in 90 A.D.

I see how catholicism works, now. When you are wrong about something don’t admit it - just pretend you always knew it.

unbelievable

Have a nice life. I can’t dialog with people who keep changing their stories to justify themselves.

I have experienced this changing stories a few times before, but never to this degree. I have no respect left for catholics whatsoever.

:tsktsk:

 

[CWBetts]

Excuse me! You are wrong.

First, I agree there was no council. But Catholics insisted there was, so most of the time I gave in and argued from a point of "if the council existed, Jews would not have removed books they believed inspired to deny Jesus because they could deny without removing books

Second, A gathering occurred, but** a gathering of a Jewish council did not occur**

Third, My experience is that Protestants have been trying to correct the false Catholic claim of “The Council of Jamnia”

This is the most amazing claim I have seen from Catholics!!! In my own forum Catholics brought up Jamnia in several threads… Never once did a Protestant mention it first.

Protestants responded to the Catholics false claims about Jews removing books.

Catholics claimed the Jewish canon was not set until Jamnia. Protestant claimed the Jewish canon was closed before Christ.

I love this turn around that states there was no Council of Jamnia. But I despise this false accusation that Protestants invented a the myth.

Go ahead deceive yourselves. Change your stories as the wind changes direction. But don’t expect me to play along with your fantasies. I never even heard about Jamnia before Catholics started telling me it proved their canon because Jews removed the books in 90 A.D.

I see how catholicism works, now. When you are wrong about something don’t admit it - just pretend you always knew it.

unbelievable

Have a nice life. I can’t dialog with people who keep changing their stories to justify themselves.

I have experienced this changing stories a few times before, but never to this degree. I have no respect left for catholics whatsoever.

:tsktsk:

The first I heard of it was in a PROTESTANT TEXTBOOK, silly girl! My prof, a convert from Calvinism, told us it never happened. So don’t get all mad because your fantasies of a council never happened. Without your pretend council, you have no ancient support for the abridged canon.

 

[Ginger2]

T…don’t get all mad because your fantasies of a council never happened. Without your pretend council, you have no ancient support for the abridged canon.

Jesus affirmed which books were indeed the Word of God.* Jesus did not include the extra books found in the Catholic Bible.
(Jesus) said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.”

Furthermore, Catholics’ extra books directly conflict with God’s Lae and even catholic Tradition.

Macc 2 which you use to support this false doctrine contradicts, not only God’s Holy Word, but it even contradicts Catholic doctrine!

1. The soldiers who died were wearing idols. That is a mortal sin. Dying in mortal: Go straight to hell.
2. These were Jews. They met they criteria for a sin to be mortal according Catholics.
   
   Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
   Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
   Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner
   The oldest canon of the Jewish OT I can find is 2 Esdras (Vg:4 Esdras):

It claims 24 OT books (Vulgate & Peshitta)

Flavius Josephus: [37- 100 ] claims 22 books, but doesn’t name them only the categories: 5 Law, 13 History, 4 Hymns.

Melito of Sardis (d 170 ad) also claims 22 books.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says: " St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian’s statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful."* and* "St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case Melito’s restricted canon is explicable on another ground (Reid G. Canon of the Old Testament. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

That means Melito’s canon consisted of these books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel; Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiaste, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

Also, if Melito was considered a prophet, how could he be wrong about the canon???
**
NOTE: **The appearance of a discrepancy in the number of books is due to the way the books were counnted, not a difference in opinion as to which books were included…

continued…

 

[Ginger2]

continued…

The Old Testament existed in complete form before Jesus was born.

There is no evidence a council was ever held at Jamnia to decide the Jewish canon.
Josephus wrote twenty years before Jamnia* He had actually temple scrolls in his possession.
Josephus’ canon was the same canon as the Protestant Bible (some books were together counting as one )

The Jews were given the OT. They would not have disposed of known inspired writings to disprove Jesus.* We know this as they acknowledge books like Isaiah. There was no need to dispose of Sacred writings as Jews demonstrated by simply rejecting the idea Jesus fit the prophesies or stating the verses pointed to by Christians are not prophecies of the Messiah. .

The apocryphal books admit that prophetic succession had already ended.
(I Macc. 9:27)* *14:41). Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.
(1 Macc. 14:41)And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise,

This means the Apocrypha were not written under the inspiration of God.

Catholic Encyclopedia states:
Canon of the Old Testament
“The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. They are not felicitous, and it would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. ]Protocanonical (protos, “first”) is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. [The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.”

The Catholic Church admits the Protestant OT, which agrees closely with the Hebrew Bible, has always been accepted and the Apocrypha were disputed at first, but later added.

Jerome separated them from the inspired books - if they were truly set in stone at that time, why was he allowed to make heretical statements and deny the apocrypha had authority?

Still more evidence is the many varying lists that followed Hippo and Carthage. No one could agree - even after Jerome completed his Vulgate.*

The Anglican Article VI says of them: “the Church does read (the books of the Apocrypha) for an example of life and instruction of manners; but yet does not apply them to establish any doctrine”]

The Eastern Orthodox recognizes more apocrypha books than the RC. They split from the Catholic Church in the 11th century - 500 years before the Council of Trent. Why is it that they have more books? There is no record the EO added them after the split, so does that mean the RC removed them at Trent???

**
THE NEW TESTAMENT:**

First century Christians knew who the Apostles were and that they were indeed spokesmen for God and what they wrote was indeed inspired of God. There was no question as the miracles testified to the truth.

ALSO
The Apostle Paul claimed inspiration* 1Galatians 1:11-12 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.

Peter acknowledges Paul’s writings are indeed God’s written Word.

2 Peter 3:15-16 …as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain
things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also
the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

I think that covers most of it.

Pay special attention to the comment I enlarged and highlighted in red lettering. You are making false accusations specifically about me, now.

Notice, I denied Jamnia. And use other historical evidence to support the Hebrew/Protestant canons.

 

[Ginger2]

The first I heard of it was in a PROTESTANT TEXTBOOK, silly girl! My prof, a convert from Calvinism, told us it never happened. …

Catholics are very good at repeating hearsay.

Show me the document where this myth began.

 

[CWBetts]

Catholics are very good at repeating hearsay.

Show me the document where this myth began.

Well I could say that Protestants are very good at repeating heresy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No. But I am too tired and in too much pain with my sprained ankle to go over it all again tonight.

John 20:23
23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Ginger-

I’m sorry you’re not feeling well; like many others following this thread, I look forward to hearing how that verse does not give the Apostles the authority to forgive sins.

I hope you feel better soon…

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is the most amazing claim I have seen from Catholics!!! In my own forum Catholics brought up Jamnia in several threads… Never once did a Protestant mention it first.

Protestants responded to the Catholics false claims about Jews removing books.

Consider the following quotes from Protestant authors, Ginger. You ignored them when I posted them above.

In his popular book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-authored by Ralph MacKenzie [Baker Books, 1995]), Norman Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary, denies the Catholic canon of the Old Testament, claiming that the Jewish rabbis at Jabneh excluded the deuterocanonical books received by Catholics and that the canon was fixed (meaning finalized) at Jabneh.

Geisler writes, “The Jewish scholars at Jabneh (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha” (169). And though Geisler seems to deny the authority of the rabbis at Jabneh in one place in his A General Introduction to the Bible (with W. E. Nix [Moody Press, 1996]), he later relays in a chart, “Council of Jabneh (A.D. 90), Old Testament Canon fixed” (286).

Geisler is not alone in his assertion that the Apocrypha was rejected and the final Old Testament canon was fixed at Jabneh. It seems to be a common legend that is used as “proof” to bolster up an ahistorical and incorrect assumption. Before we take a look at the myth, we will demonstrate how it is often appealed to. A couple more quick examples of this false reliance on the “Council of Jabneh” will suffice:

“At the end of the first Christian century, the Jewish rabbis, at the Council of Gamnia [Jamnia], closed the canon of the Hebrew book (those considered authoritative)” (Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism & Christianity [Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1986], 129).

“After Jerusalem’s destruction, Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. Around 100, a council of rabbis there established the final canon of the OT” (Ed. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments [InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1997], 185).

These quotes are from Protestant authors attempting to use Jamnia in support of the false idea that the Jewish canon was closed and that the truncated Protestant canon is correct.

Catholics claimed the Jewish canon was not set until Jamnia. Protestant claimed the Jewish canon was closed before Christ.

Without evidence, I cannot comment on what other Catholics may or may not have said.

I love this turn around that states there was no Council of Jamnia. But I despise this false accusation that Protestants invented a the myth.

Deal with the quotes from Protestant authors above, Ginger. Deal with them…

Go ahead deceive yourselves. Change your stories as the wind changes direction. But don’t expect me to play along with your fantasies. I never even heard about Jamnia before Catholics started telling me it proved their canon because Jews removed the books in 90 A.D.

I never made that argument, so don’t accuse me of “fantasy”.

I see how catholicism works, now. When you are wrong about something don’t admit it - just pretend you always knew it.

Deal with the Protestant authors first, Ginger. These are Protestant arguments…

Have a nice life. I can’t dialog with people who keep changing their stories to justify themselves.

Since I never argued as you claim other Catholics have argued, what is to prevent you from dialoging with me? I haven’t changed my story, have I?

I have experienced this changing stories a few times before, but never to this degree. I have no respect left for catholics whatsoever.

Well, I have documented your errors in the other thread…but if it’s more convenient for you to bail, I understand. Still, tucking tail and running for home simply because I have presented the facts correctly seems weak to me…whatever.

Just remember that you have not proven that THIS Catholic ever changed his story.

Nor have you proven that the Jewish canon was closed in such manner that the Deuterocanonicals were excluded.

The Catholic Church has maintained the same canon since the fourth century, and you have your New Testament today specifically because the Church penned, promulgated, preserved, protected and preached the word of God for 1500 years before Luther ever thought to remove those books which created difficulties for his own theological novelties.

 

[Ginger2]

I can’t let this distortion go unchallenged…

"Geisler writes, "The Jewish scholars at Jabneh (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. … the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha" (169). And though Geisler seems to deny the authority of the rabbis at Jabneh in one place in his A General Introduction to the Bible (with W. E. Nix [Moody Press, 1996]), he later relays in a chart, “Council of Jabneh (A.D. 90), Old Testament Canon fixed” (286). "

Geisler’s comments have obviously been taken out of content to accuse Protestants of claiming an authoritative council at Jamnia, but as you can see, if you want to see, Geisler denies this and states the Apocrypha were always rejected.

Hope that is enough to dispel this distortion on Protestant teaching…Now on to Catholic teaching…

catholicfaithandreason.org/OTcanon.htm
*** Two decades later, the Council of Jabneh (Jamnia), a group of Jewish scholars, meeting about 90 A.D. with the permission of the Romans, set up a reconstituted Sanhedrin. Although they discussed several writings in the Septuagint [there is no evidence to support such a claim] that were then in doubt in the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures and rejected Christian writings, there is no evidence as Protestants later claimed they rejected the seven books Protestants now call the “Apocrypha” (meaning hidden), although** they did agree to make a new translation of the Septuagint.** [What tales these Catholics tell there is no evidence to support such a claim]…”

… It is interesting to recognize as does the Jerome Bible Commentary seems to agree noting:

Toward the end of the first century A.D. at Jamnia, they decided that their Bible consisted only of books written up to the time of Ezra, when prophecy was deemed to have ceased; and this criterion, though not applied uniformly, excluded the books of more recent origin which were on the whole less in accord with the Pharisaic outlook. the need for a decision was forced upon the Jews because of the growing controversies with Christians; and besides delimiting the Canon of Scripture they also not long afterward condemned the Greek Septuagint translation as inaccurate. (Introduction)

Now this last part really is interesting. Catholics have told me Protestants inveted a mythical council in Jamnia, yet this exceptation says the Jerome commentary states, “Toward the end of the first century A.D. at Jamnia, they decided that their Bible consisted only of books written up to the time of Ezra,…”

Ginger

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying that when you were Protestant, you were taught that you could lie, steal, sleep with your neighbor’s wife, and even murder someone just for fun, throughout your entire life, and it was irrelevant to your salvation because you had been Baptized and/or confirmed???

Then why do Protestants try to avoid sin and why do Protestants teach you need ask to God’s forgiveness, go to the injured party and ask forgiveness and make amends and be reconciled???

I think because many of them take sanctification very seriously.

It is not because they think it effects their salvation, though. It is because it is their understanding of how a saved person behaves.

Perhaps you just didn’t understand what it means to have your past present sins forgiven. Misunderstanding happens in the Catholic Church, too.

OSAS must have been invented by Catholics, as Luther never taught it.

Ginger

You are correct - the vast majority of baptized Catholics do not understand the faith. There is a whole generation of us that were very poorly catechized.

OSAS was invented by Calvin, who built upon Luther’s foundation when he departed from the Apostolic Teaching.

 

[guanophore]

some Catholics also mistakenly think confession is a free pass to sin.

And while a Catholic may avoid mortal sins like murder, he can also weigh the smaller sins against spending a little more time in purgatory and the benefit of avoiding the extra time thru penance and indulgences.

Catholic or Protestant, we can’t avoid the fact there will be some who misunderstand God’s grace, forgiveness and mercy.

This is a sad fact.

OSAS, though, predisposes one to misunderstanding.

Protestants don’t rank ours sins.

Such a position is not scriptural!

If you reject God, you are worthy of eternal condemnation even if you have never committed a personal sin.

But this is absolutely the most grievious personal sin a person can commit!

 

[guanophore]

What in the world are you talking about,"and received the Catholic faith ect.---?'

I am talking about the Bereans being “more noble” because they received the Apostolic (Catholic) teaching with eagerness. They explored the Scripture in the light of what the Apostles taught. This does not happen among Protestants today. To a large degree, they believe that the Catholic Church no longer contains the teaching of the Apostles, and refuse to listen to her.

It’s not the faith in the Catholic church that saves, It’s the faith in Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross that saves. Even children, without the help of any Magistrium, can clearly understand when they read about it for themselves. ED O.

There is no separation between Christ, and His Holy Bride. The faith of the Catholic church is identical with the faith in Jesus sacrifice on the cross.

The reason children can understand this is because Jesus set it up that way. That is why we baptize them. If it were not for the magesterium, there would be nothing to read!

 

[guanophore]

First, the canon was not set until the Council of Trent. Before Trent the RC used Jerome’s Vulgate as their official Scriptures. Trent declared a different canon then Jerome’s Vulgate.

Second, Luther didn’t change Scripture, at all. Luther’s translation into German included all the same books as Jerome - including appending the apocrypha just like Jerome did.

This is false, Ginger2. The canon was completed by 382, when the Septuagint was placed together with the 27 books of the NT.

It was re-iterated in the West at Trent, due to heresy. If you look at the 22 Rites of the Eastern Church, who never used the Vulgate, you will see that the canon has not changed since it was declared in the 4th century.