If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching Sola Scriptura today...

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is this because you do not see the progression of Peter from a sinful man, you do not recognize his repentance after he denied Christ 3 times, and do not want to recognize the recognition given him by the Lord?

And is this the reason why still there are those in the protestant world who call the Pope, Peter’s successor the Anti-Christ?
So why does that verse interpreted in Aramaic by your church and not the rest; that was the question that no one has yet to answer because they cannot answer it w/out revealing what is the obvious reason.

There are only two types of people in the world; Christians and anti-Christians. You must mea, concerning Peter, given this authority, then a few verses later being called Satan by Jesus, the a few days later an argument/discussion about who will be the greatest in the Kingdom and Jesus, I guess being poor in memory, forgot to tell them that was decided a few days ago. How silly.
 
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?pictureid=7718&albumid=1125&dl=1288324193&thumb=1

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:15-17[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Lk 22:32[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 1:13-26[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:17-19[/BIBLEDRB]

Notice the last Scripture passage. The Apostles were divided about whether or not you have to be circumcised (among other things) to be saved. If Peter’s decision was NOT authoritative, then, assuming that you are male… it’s ouchie time for you. 🙂

They are sinners like almost everyone else. YOU are a sinner; does that mean you can’t teach authoritatively about Scripture? :bigyikes:

The Church doesn’t claim that popes are bishops are impeccable.
so we can leap from Peter making a decision to popal authority; okay i see the connection; i wish the other apostles, the Lord and the rest did; i don’t. Paul later rebuked Peter, so does this now mean that Paul is the authority? Why not?
 
I doubt I can twist Scriptures since I know it is not my own enterpretation. I dont have the authority giving by God to enterpret Scriptures and I know that. I know my place in the Church of the Living God.
with that being said. I telll you that what you just said works well wiht man made churches. but not with the Church found by God. now, i ask you can you show me how your communty of believers is connected to the communities of believers connected with the Apostles then? which Church was one that you were connected to back then? can you tell me? was the Church of Rome? was the Church in Ephesus? was the Church in Jerusalem? which one is it?
In essence you are claiming the church is revealed in direct contradiction to Scripture so how do you reconcile that? You cannot; it is impossible because it is error.

19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Who are the “sons of God”? Christians. What is the collective body of Christians? The BRIDE of Christ. Has the Bride, the true church been revealed yet? NO

Yet you make the claim that it is; so who should I believe? You or God?
 
The Church has already been revealed. She is not hidden.

[BIBLEDRB]Eph 4:4[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 5:14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 18:17-18[/BIBLEDRB]
Really; are you sure about that? Read post#200 and one must decide whether to believe you as an authority or believe God as the authority.
 
You, and MD, have utterly failed to respond to the verses that state that not everything Christ did or taught was committed to the Scriptures. In fact, you keep changing the topic because you don’t want to address them. For the FOURTH time:
i like the way you twisted what John said that not everything that Jesus taught was recorded; that may be true, but that is not what that passage says. It does say that if everthing Jesus did, which of course he removed sickness from tens of thousands and removed demons and if every single account of that was recorded i guess the largest supercomputer would blow up.

If there was more He wanted to reveal; then He would have revealed it and your answer was given, which was Paul stated by letter or by mouth, the MODE of the message not a change or addition to a message.

I can take a math class in person and hear the professor directly or I could take the identical math teaching on an online class and even with the same professor; the message doesn’t change, but the MODE of delivery of that message does. There is no place where it says there is extra revelation and there are 3-4 places where it warns about adding or subtracting in both the OT and NT. Is God the God of contradiction? I do not think so do you?
 
So I guess you are not man because you perfectly understand Scripture. Right?

(The bold are the answers to your questions.)
Anyway, I can and will answer your questions posed to me unlike you who has yet to answer 1 of my questions. I can prove that something does not exist. I cannot do it definitively but I can prove it. Do not tell me what I can and cannot do. If you tell me I cannot fly or something illogical, then I will agree but that would only be facetious. I do not know what that question about the Aramaic interpretation means. I cannot answer it because I have no clue what you are asking. To answer your next question: Nobody has any basis for a self-appointed authority. If you were making a subtle jab at insulting the Catholic Church, I will ignore it and just keep the question answered in the manner it was asked. No need for elaboration because your face will be so red.

First paragraph critique (which is very simple): I do not care that I am being told what the bible states (if that is even the case). The Bible tells me what the Bible states anyway. What is the difference. A living authority can tell me what the Bible means because I am not claiming at all to know even remotely what it means. The Word of God is God. Certainly there is infinite knowledge to be had from the Word but I cannot get even a finite meaning by myself. Apparently you have the infinite knowledge though. I am jealous. And another thing, I did not even mention Timothy! I do not know anything from there. But I will agree with you that all of what Sacred Tradition we claim are one and the same (hence, our one name for it). The written is the same as the spoken, to an extent. A square (written) is always a rectangle (spoken) but a rectangle is not always a square. I did read it and it helps the Church’s case. We do not claim to have “extra tradition” as you claim that we claim. STOP TELLING ME WHAT I BELIEVE! What is so difficult in refraining from telling ME what I believe? It is all part of the same tradition. We have proven our case of infallibility. You just choose to ignore it because you ignore all the posts that prove our case as you did in several threads. I do not blame you though. Being proven wrong is very humbling. I was atheist. I would know.

Second paragraph critique (not as simple as the first but still simple): I mentioned that I have no idea about the Aramaic deal in my first paragraph. And No… We do not have to rest on Scripture alone. That needs proving AFTER you debunk our ideas which you have steered clear from attempting to do. I completely agree with you that most (you said all but I know what you mean) religions claim those things. Problem with your assumptions about the Catholic Church is that we do not take our tradition as “outside Scripture” as you claim. Anyway, how can something (we claim) be outside something when that very thing is claimed to contain it? Is a couch outside of a house when that couch is said to be inside the house? We claim that the Sacred Tradition contains Scripture and spoken. There is nothing “extra”. It is just another part of the picture. I am not contradicting myself here. Jesus’ arm is part of His picture. I would not say that His leg is extra when looking at the whole picture. And I completely agree with your last two or three (depending on how one looks at it).

Notice how I defended my part very honestly and subtly and presented my case. I ripped it apart very well. You insist on telling ME what the Church believes. I know it better than you. Trust me. Notice also how I do not tell you what you believe. Again, in an argument, the person who defends from the standpoint that they are right ALWAYS has the upper hand against someone who attacks from the standpoint that they are wrong.
You can prove a negative; completly violates the rules of logic 101. Then you insult me by sarcastically stating I am infallible, which is also an insult to God since you violate the second command of Jesus and thus by default the fisrt and greatest command, which is a mortal sin by Catholic standards to violate the Greatest commandment. All of you kill me by not even adhering to your own Catholic standards of conduct and blatently violate Jesus commands without even giving a second thought about it. Shame.

God warned about human wisdom and philosophy; you treat the Word of God as though it is not living and sharper than a two-edged sword; that it is supernatural and is above all other writings put together; it outweighs them all just as Jesus outweighs all of creation.

You rightly stated that you do not need to rest on Scripture alone; I never met a religion that did? Have you? I never met a Christian that hasn’t; have you?

I’m out of here; this has become silly is as silly says. To each may god bless you; this is not the place God would have me to be. The victory is yours; you convinced a man of God to leave; congratulations.
 
In essence you are claiming the church is revealed in direct contradiction to Scripture so how do you reconcile that? You cannot; it is impossible because it is error.

19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Who are the “sons of God”? Christians. What is the collective body of Christians? The BRIDE of Christ. Has the Bride, the true church been revealed yet? NO

Yet you make the claim that it is; so who should I believe? You or God?
Are you able to use any reason at all? i am asking you to show me which Church does you community of believers belonged to. was the Church in Corinthian, Jerusalem, rome, which one? which Church from the time of the Apostles is your community of believers? do you have any historical events about your community of believers that goes back to the Apostles? please, that is what i am talking about.
when was the True Church revealed?
 
Are you able to use any reason at all? i am asking you to show me which Church does you community of believers belonged to. was the Church in Corinthian, Jerusalem, rome, which one? which Church from the time of the Apostles is your community of believers? do you have any historical events about your community of believers that goes back to the Apostles? please, that is what i am talking about.
when was the True Church revealed?
I pray that God will allow you to see the difference between the spiritual and the temporal. A building with a cross or steeple is a building where people meet; some Christians and most are not accroding to Scripture, the there is we walk by faith and not by sight, the man has been renewed in the Spirit, the true church yet to be revealed because it is spitiual by its NEW NATURE, not carnal. God bless you! See previous post; I am leaving; God does not want me to be here and neither do any of you.
 
That is completly contrary to Scripture in oh so many passages in botht he OT and the NT, How many tinmes did Jesus say let those who have ears hear? When the chuirch first began; the preacher was preaching, the people heard and when they believed what they heard; what happened? Salvation. David siad "teach me your ways oh Lord and I will live by your truth. and this is just scratching the surface, but you would need to read Scriptures to see and to understand if the Lord allows for the Scriptures aslso say the natural man cannot understand the things of God and the opposite is the man of God can and does understand. So your whole idea of the layity not being able to understand smacks straight in the face of Scripture.
here is something for you to think about,

Romans 10:15, And how can men preach unless they are sent? i ask you who sent you to preach?

“Neither does any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was.”
Hebrews 5:4
were you called by God like Aaron was?

here is a good one for you.

“He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory;
but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true,
and in him there is no falsehood.”
John 7:18

were you sent? or you just went?
 
Hey Calvin…
Calvin 95;7221106]We got the Bible from God; since it is His revelation to man about what He wanted to reveal about himself - do you deny this?
No catholic denies this fact.
It is obvious where you are going with this, but in a like manner you would have to show from Scripture first the mention of the Roman Catholic Church or the Catholic Church as we know and understand it; so you are going down a path you cannot defend.
So, if the bible does not mention the RCC or the CC, the CC must not be the church founded by God. Okay…I know that you admit that none of the visible Protestant Churches were founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem on Pentecost either. That leaves us with nothing but visible churches founded by mere man as opposed to Jesus Christ. What happened to the church founded by Jesus Christ, circa AD 33, in Jerusalem on Pentecost?
However we can look at what Scripture says about itself. It is enough to bring men to salvation; I could stop right there because what is the purpose of the Scripture but to point to the savior unto salvation.
Scripture says one thing to you Calvin and another thing to me. Does it not matter that we have polar opposite views when it comes to passages in the bible that deal with eternal life? For example John 6.
Does it give guidance in holy conduct? yes Does it have the ability to equip the man of God for every good work? Yes
I agree with you. Can scripture interpret scripture???
There is a saying in Scripture that goes something like this; they have a form of godliness, BUT deny the power of it; it being the word of God. Isn’t that exactly what you are doing and the direction you have headed? Only you can answer that from all appearances the answer is yes.
Silly…
What is the law, the testimony, the precepts, the commandments and the ordinances all referring to?
What does any of that have to do with my OP? :confused:
 
Hi, Joe370,

Nice job of cutting through the blather. I am going to bed now… but, God willing, I will see if I can provide some insight into reading real words from the Scripture instead of this falsely interpreted version he is work with.

This nonsense about Aramaic verse Hebrew and Greek is truly novel - imagine, here we are reading it in English!

God bless
Hey Calvin…

No catholic denies this fact.

So, if the bible does not mention the RCC or the CC, the CC must not be the church founded by God. Okay…I know that you admit that none of the visible Protestant Churches were founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem on Pentecost either. That leaves us with nothing but visible churches founded by mere man as opposed to Jesus Christ. What happened to the church founded by Jesus Christ, circa AD 33, in Jerusalem on Pentecost?

Scripture says one thing to you Calvin and another thing to me. Does it not matter that we have polar opposite views when it comes to passages in the bible that deal with eternal life? For example John 6.

I agree with you. Can scripture interpret scripture???

Silly…

What does any of that have to do with my OP? :confused:
 
Hi, Calvin95

You’re partially right! 🙂
What you just described is the total sovereignty of God in salvation. All of God, none of man, election, some to heaven and the rest to hell. Some believed at penatcost and some did not; the power was in the message, not the messengers as it has been since pentacost. Thank you very much fo all of that - good work! Praise the Lord!!
GOD IS SOVEREIGN! And you know what I agree! 😃 The part you may have some trouble coming to girps with, however, is that man has free will and this is a free gift (Grace) of God. The next will require a leap of faith - but, here it is: God has freely chosen to work with man’s exercise of free will as it cooperates or fails to cooperate with the Grace God has given. Just like Adam had free will and freely chose to disobey God - so we, too, have this same gift. If we choose to cooperate with God’s Grace, God will give us His Life. Those who, at the end of their lives, choose to refuse God’s Grace will be denied access to God’s Divine Presence.

As Paul told Timothy (1Tim 2:4) God wills the salvation of all men! Imagine that! And, God has freely chosen to abide with the decisions made by man concerning man’s cooperation with God’s Grace. Man can not save himself (don’t want you to get off on a tangent here…) but, through the Grace of God, man can choose God and cooperate with His Grace. This is something Calvin never really quite got straight. But, the good news is that you really do not have to follow in his error! 🙂

Oh, and thank you for the compliment… 😃

God bless
 
so we can leap from Peter making a decision to popal authority; okay i see the connection; i wish the other apostles, the Lord and the rest did; i don’t. Paul later rebuked Peter, so does this now mean that Paul is the authority? Why not?
Paul rebuked him for his personal conduct which has nothing to with his authority or doctrine. All men today are sinners.

Either Peter was authoritative or all men are going to be in for some pain. 🙂
 
You can prove a negative; completly violates the rules of logic 101. Then you insult me by sarcastically stating I am infallible, which is also an insult to God since you violate the second command of Jesus and thus by default the fisrt and greatest command, which is a mortal sin by Catholic standards to violate the Greatest commandment. All of you kill me by not even adhering to your own Catholic standards of conduct and blatently violate Jesus commands without even giving a second thought about it. Shame.]
Hopefully, I did this quoting thing right. Anyway… Yes, I can prove a negative. Like I said, not definitively but I can. Sarcastically saying you are infallible is hardly an insult. I did it with fun. If you heard my voice, you would have known that and read it in context. I am really sorry for insulting you though. In any case, it is not an offense against God. You are not God. I am not either. That is not an insult. I would never offend my God lest I be condemned to hell. But yes, insulting God is a mortal sin. I agree. When you insult the Church, we believe you are insulting Christ, but we leave the judging up to God. You have over and over insulted us but when one is being jokingly sarcastic (not meaning it) over something minute, you complain. We were having a healthy conversation. I was defending. You were attacking. I only had a problem with the stuff you were telling me that I believe. That is it. I have repeated over and over that I do not mind people telling me I am wrong. I do, however, mind when people tell me what I believe when I know that it is not true. I do sincerely apologize for offending you. Know that I did not mean to. You had healthy sarcasm so I had healthy sarcasm. And according to what I just said, those last two sentences are no longer applicable.
God warned about human wisdom and philosophy; you treat the Word of God as though it is not living and sharper than a two-edged sword; that it is supernatural and is above all other writings put together; it outweighs them all just as Jesus outweighs all of creation.
I agree with you except for one word: “not”. Take out that word and that paragraph is completely true. And I agree with it completely (minus “not”). You tell me what I believe and do again. I am not sure if there is one post you made responding to me where you were not guilty of doing that.
You rightly stated that you do not need to rest on Scripture alone; I never met a religion that did? Have you? I never met a Christian that hasn’t; have you?
The word “alone” should raise your eyebrows and think that we do rest on Scripture… Just not alone. I have met a religion that did that: the Catholic Church. I have met Christians who do that: Catholics. We have been trying to prove our point on this. We have been taking the position that we do not rest on Scripture ALONE but we do rest on Scripture.
I’m out of here; this has become silly is as silly says. To each may god bless you; this is not the place God would have me to be. The victory is yours; you convinced a man of God to leave; congratulations.
Now THAT is good sarcasm! 🙂 I will not take the victory. We have yet to prove our point. Besides, it would hardly be MY victory. Truth is victorious one in all arguments, not me. Nor you. Somebody has to have the Truth. We are not done figuring that out yet. Come on Calvin, you know I did not mean any of it. You have insulted us over and over but who cares? None of us think you are non-Christian. Well, I certainly do not think that. You still have to prove your point! I still have no idea why you believe Sola Scriptura! You have attacked to no avail. Now… State your case. Maybe that would be a better grounds for you.
 
Paul rebuked him for his personal conduct which has nothing to with his authority or doctrine. All men today are sinners.

Either Peter was authoritative or all men are going to be in for some pain. 🙂
I think Calvin95 is forgetting to look at one point, and is dwelling on this fact to prove to himself that Peter was not the Pope.

For once, they fail to look at Peter’s character and to look at his humility. He accepted Paul’s rebuke and changed his ways…indicating his ability to repent…and his heart…which the Lord looked at…in telling Peter to Feed my Sheep…Tend my sheep…
 
You can prove a negative; completly violates the rules of logic 101. Then you insult me by sarcastically stating I am infallible, which is also an insult to God since you violate the second command of Jesus and thus by default the fisrt and greatest command, which is a mortal sin by Catholic standards to violate the Greatest commandment. All of you kill me by not even adhering to your own Catholic standards of conduct and blatently violate Jesus commands without even giving a second thought about it. Shame.
So you are without sin? That claim itself is fatal to your claim to have the truth.

[BIBLEDRB]1 John 1:8[/BIBLEDRB]

Riddle me this: If you say that righteousness is imputed and thus “faith alone” causes the sinner’s sin to be replaced by Christ’s righteousness, isn’t the sinner then without sin? If so, how can the ex-sinner claim to have the truth given the above?
God warned about human wisdom and philosophy; you treat the Word of God as though it is not living and sharper than a two-edged sword; that it is supernatural and is above all other writings put together; it outweighs them all just as Jesus outweighs all of creation.
This sounds like worship of the Bible, making the Book equal to the Author. Dangerous Islamic influence there… You might want to take a look at the alliance between Germany, the Dutch, Britain, and the militant Islamic Ottoman Turks that existed contemporaneously with the Reformation… To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.
You rightly stated that you do not need to rest on Scripture alone; I never met a religion that did? Have you?
Um, what was the OP again? Oh yeah…
However, if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was teaching Sola Scriptura in the first century, then that would mean that Paul was contradicting himself, since, in the first century, he was also promoting inspired oral tradition as another source of divine revelation, as well as promoting deference to the church authority, as opposed to the bible alone, as per Hebrews 13:17.
Behold, agreement.

**
GAME OVER
INSERT COIN TO CONTINUE**
 
Hi, Calvin95,

I did my best to answer you post - there was just so much in it … that it took some time and space to provide you with an appropriate response. This is 1 of 4! Truly, the longest post I have written! :eek:

Well… let’s remain calm and listen to the explanation. Now, could I have said this better - yes, espeially for one concerned about a “…blasphemous statement…”.
That is a blasphemous statement concerning who brought Christ down may God forgive you.

From all eternity, God chose Christ - the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity - to come to earth and be our Savior. The Holy Spirit overshadowed the virgin Mary and she conceived Christ and He was born into the world. He had about a 3-year Publid Ministry and during that time founded His Church - the Catholic Church (not the Lutherans, Calvinists or other religions of men) and then suffered, died, and rose from the dead. He ascended into Heaven. Ten days later, the Holy Spirit infused His Graces to the 120 followers of Christ (at this time they really did not have a formal name - at least none that is recorded) and here we have Peter giving his first sermon and converting 3,000 people! Christ was brought to the world by the followers of Christ - and in about the year 110AD they were given the name Catholic by Ignatius of Antioch. From this point on we can historically trace their works.

Revisionist historians always have a nice way of well revising history and I noticed you avoided the core question, which is why that particular passage is interpreted by the church in the aramaic; yet not the rest.

Your core argument is that Matt 16:18 - the Inspired Word of God - is/was in Aramaic - and somehow this renders this poriton void. Do yourself a favor and read post 191 where I responded to that - and then tell me why you think the language voids the content

The answer is obvious as to why. No one in the first175 years after Christs death believed in apostolic succession except for heretics.

Sooooo… let me see. Just where do you get this information. Really. What is your source? According to you, Calvin95 for 175 years after Christ - this was just a game and the first 12 men to be recognized as Pope (here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm ) were not being lead by the Spirit of God to spread the message of Christ during serious persecution by the Roman Empire. Yet - 176 years later (until the mid 16th Century, of courrse) eveyone then believed in the Pope as the Successor of Peter/ Is this what you are saying? Well, if this was a fraud - according to you - any idea how it last for so long? Truly the murderous Roman Empire was in the best position to shake everyone - so people were willing to die for a deceitful group that was somehow honestly proclaiming Christ - until obviously saved from their error in the mid 16th Century? Just like that pile of dominos at your feet, the claim of Revisionist is laid there, too!

CONTINUED
 
--------------------------------------------- Page 2 of 4-

Even Paul saw this and warned against this in two passages concerning geaneologies and in one about I am of Apollos, I am of Paul , I am of CEPHAS; isn’t that what you claim to be…of CEPHAS?

No. I am assuming you are misquoting and misunderstanding 1Cor 3:1-9. Here is the section and identify that Paul is identifying these Corinthians as quite immature, evaluating in human terms and missing the point. The Apostles are responsible and accountable to God.
**1
Brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ.
2
I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now,
3
for you are still of the flesh. While there is jealousy and rivalry among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving in an ordinary human way?
4
Whenever someone says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?
5
What is Apollos, after all, and what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord assigned each one.
6
I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth.
7
Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth.
8
The one who plants and the one who waters are equal, and each will receive wages in proportion to his labor.
9
For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. **

I belong to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Christ on Peter. Christ did not found His Church on Luther or Calvin or Henry VIII - and that is the truth. Of course, if you have a Scriptural quote where Christ came back and took His Authority away from the Catholic Church and gave it to any man (or woman) I would invite you to produce it.

If you are going to put words in the Lord’s mouth, you better make sure they are accurate, which here you are wrong again and I am assuming you mean water baptism. He did command all believers to be water baptized, but not as a means or resulting in salvation.

I will do my best, Calvin95, to quote correctly. Here is some informaton on the necessity of Baptism. You will find both Scriptural references given in context and a logical presentation on what is involved.

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0803fea2.asp

catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

Christ did not command anyone to literally eat His flesh and literally drink his blood anymore than he literally meant that literal sheep hear his voice. If He had He would have actually given His flesh and His blood to the apostles/disciples at the last supper since He always lead by EXAMPLE, but He was pointing to the sacrafice of His flesh and blood on the cross, which all the writers of the NT understood. Praise God for the apostle Paul who was not there but God used to make very clear the intent of the Lord’s Supper.

Here againi, Calvin95. we see the dangers of private interpretation. You have totally misread the clearly written Word of God. Just read the words of John 6 - no one ever walked away from an analogy. Ah, but back to the immature Corinthians as we find in 1Cor 11 - Paul was clear, these people were eating and drinking the Lords Flesh and Blood to their own condemnation - not for somehow abusing an analogy or a ‘rememberance’ - but for their lack of respect for the Real Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, hidden under the form of Bread and Wine. Here are two reference you may find helpful - but, be warned - they totally refute your view:

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307iron.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402sbs.asp

Show one one example where an apostle directly by his own power that you claim was given to them forgave anyone’s sin. You won’t find one; so I’ll save you the trouble

**19
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
20
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21
(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.” **

Now, Calvin, I admit there is no place in the NT where the Apostles using the Power God gave them to forgive sin were recorded as having done so. But, how do you then address these verses from John 20? We know that not everything Christ did is recorded. Guess what? Not everything the Apostles is recorded either. Your argument against Confession is simply an argument against the Word of God. I suggest you prepare your response for why you did not believe His Word very well when you come before the White Throne of Judgment. Now, in case you need some Scripural content and a logical presentation - try this:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110sbs.asp

CONTINUED
 
---------------------------------Page 3 of 4

because the message, the gospel, is where the power and authority rests; not the person giving the gospel message, which is why Matthew 18 was written in case someone believed the power to lose and bind was exclusive to the apostles or was not from heaven. Is the message of the gospel the power from heaven or not? You think about that while you are looking for an example of an apostle forgiving sins based on their merit and not of Christs.

I am pleased to inform you, Calvin95, that I have thought and prayed about this matter.

So, Calvin95, you are saying that anyone can lose or bind? Does this make any sense? If everyone were judge and jury what need of we to have rules? There are rules and if the person in authority decides to bind us to those rules - they have the authority to do so. The same is true if these rules are losed on our behalf - but, this is not done BY us, it is done FOR us by the one in authority. Now, if you do not believe that Christ is guiding His Chruch (and, that would be the Catholic Church) - did Christ wait until the mid 16th Century to decided to guide Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII - all condemning one another and all condemning the Chruch of Christ - the Catholic Church.

If you are sincere in your opposition, then I present you with the argument that will simply refute your presentations: catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp After you read it, I will be happey to respond to your specific questions.

Since Peter is dead physically, then I guess the church age is over, but of course it is not because Scripture teaches that Christ is the foundation and that He is building His church; one that no Peter could hold up…LOL

There really is nothing funny in your argument, Calvin95. If you judge as man judges then you will misjudge the entire matter. Peter was not given immortality to be the Vicar of Christ on earth - but, Christ expects His Church to last until He comes again in Glory. So, just like Paul taught and appointed Timothy to succeed him in the Ministry, Peter passed his authority on to another… and this was done all the way to our current Holy Father, Benedict XVI.

Here is a link you will not find funny - but, it should provide some insights on where you are failing to identify what is actually happening in the Bible you are holding.

catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

I believe you have been corrected from Scripture and you avoided the question of why that verse is interpreted in the Aramaic and the others are not because you can’t give a valid reason.

Actually, Calvin95, you have attempted to provide your own interpretation to Scripture - and I have provided the actual verses and a reasoned argument as to why you are in error. There was no avoiding of your major question involving Aramaic - it is simply a red herring you are using to throw off the topic. The issue is not the language that was used but what was said. You are going against God’s Word because it was written in Aramaic?! This is beyond silly - and you worry about me and blasphamy? Get serious. In the last link I provided you (no sense in using non-Catholic links to prove a Catholic point of faith is there? Chances are, if you read it you will have an entirely new idea. Do you dare? Actually, I have little hope of you even reading any of the material I have provided… but, the issue is, I have provided it and this is something you will have to deal with.

If you say it was because He spoke Aramaic, then you must interpret all of it in Aramaic; there is good reason God gave us the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek and a tiny portion in Aramaic, but not Matthew 16:18.

And, how do you know this, Calvin95?

CONTINUED
 
---------------------------- Page 4 of 4

The hate for John Calvin is so contradictive of God’s second commandment which means the first and greatest is also violated; ever stopped to consider that and by your own religious standard the violation of the greatest is a mortal sin. Do you all even adhere to your own standards? You know what; I never considered that and he is right.

Actually, Calvin95, I do not hate your name-sake - he is history. He has received his eternal judgment. My only hope for him is that he repented at the end - and this is something no one knows. But, he has a lot to answer for when it comes to giving public scandal and leading others away from the True Church. There is no violation of any commandment to hate evil. Simply put, we are to love the things of God and hate those man made things and flesh items that cause us to leave God (John 3:3-7; Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14-16) Man-made religions and those who sponsor them have a lot to answer for.

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top