Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul

[guanophore]

No, they don’t. The 1Jn passage is talking about the unpardonalbe sin. Which is any sin that is not confessed and repented of.

Where is this in your Bible?

Where are the classifications of sin in this v. Don’t you see how dangerous this idea is. Number one. It minimizes the hatefulness and destructive nature of sin.

There are many passages that refer to the various seriousness of sins. No, it is not a dangerous idea. If it were, Jesus would not have taught it! It does not minimize the hatfuleness and destructive nature of sins. On the contrary, these elements are germaine to understanding the degrees of sins. Jesus was clear that intention to sin makes sin much more serious.

And number two and probably the worst it minimizes Christ's sacrifice on the cross. That He didn't die for **all** sin, because some sin just isn't that bad and we can take care of those ourselves. This doctrine was hatched in the bowels of hell.

No, Richard. Jesus did die for all sins. In his graciousness, He allows us to participate in making reparation for the harms caused by our sins.

I am certain that your perceptions of the Catholic faith were, indeed, hatched where you believe that they were. Fortunately, there is little resemblence between what the church believes and teaches, and your percpetions.

So, how can you repent when you are six weeks old. The truth is baptism has no power to give grace, to sanctify you, or to wash away sins.

The command to repent is for adults, and children above the age of reason. You are right that infants and others cannot “repent” of personal sins, because they have none. It is important that you reject the sacramental nature of baptism (that it conveys grace and power). This is the only way to justify being separated from the sacraments.

We receive grace from God through faith, it is a gift. And our sins are washed away by the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Yes, this is a good summary of baptism.

Our baptism is an announcement to the world that we have taken Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

This is a good summary of the meaning of the modern innovation of Protestant baptism. However, it bears no resemblance to what the Apostles believed and taught.

When something is destroyed it ceases to exist.

In some cases, this is true, in others, it does not mean that. For example, Jesus destroyed sin on the cross, but it still exists.

So, we don’t need Christ’s sacrifice, We can do it ourselves?

I think the salient point here is the meaning of “atone”. God allows us to make reparation for our sins. We can only do this because Jesus has already atoned for them.

Above you said we could atone for our sins by our works. Now you are saying we need Christ. What gives?

Anything we do that becomes a participation in Christ is done in us, and through us, by the HS. They are not “our works” but His, which He has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

What “gives” is that you do not understand what the Apostles believed and taught.

I don’t reject the authority of Christ’s church. I just reject your claim that that church is the CC

You do reject the authority of the Church. SS is such a rejection. Your repeated insistence that all of what the Apostles’ taught is contane in scripture makes your rejection of the Authority He gave to the Church more sure.

Yea and I disproved every one of your claims.

To no one but yourself.

Again a very arrogant statement. Jesus is the word and that word, all that is necessary unto eternal life, is contained in the bible.

No, Richard. Jesus, the eternal Word of God, cannot be "contained’ in the Bible. This is a falsehood, and borders on bibliolatry. The authority given by Christ to the church is not “arrogant”.

 but that church is not the CC.

I find myself wondering, why are you here on Catholic Answers Forum, Richard?
Do you have some unresolved resentment you need to work out?

The apostles wrote letters to the churches. Some of these letters are in the bible. They also preached in person to some of these churches.What they taught is JESUS CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED OR THE GOSPEL. There is nothing else needed.

If this were true, then Jesus would not have needed to build a Church. There would be no need for all the things in Scripture that it says we need, like pastors and teachers, and growing in right doctrine. This is a very narrow understanding of Christianity.

 

[guanophore]

I was replying to your post on 1 John 15-16 which says:16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
The sin not unto death here is sin that is repented of. The sin unto death is the unpardonable sin and that sin is any sin that is not repented of.

I will agree that it is not possible to pardon a sin without repentance. However, the text makes it clear that there are some sins for which prayer is effective, and others that are unto death. This verse must be taken together with other verses that talk about the degrees of sin. It is also instructive to see how the disciples of the Apsotles understood what they taught. This part is difficult for you , since you are separated from this portion of the revelation of God.

 I don't either, because yelling at your children is not sin.

It most certainly can be. However, I think that is outside the scope of this thread.

If once you repent you became sanctified and you were first sanctified at your baptism and you were baptised as a baby, you must have repented as a baby. How is that possible.

We are washed, cleansed, and regenerated in Baptism. We are sealed by the “circumcision made without hands” by the HS.

 This is extremely confusing You are basicilly saying here that Jesus sacrifice washes us from the sin that was washed away at baptism. How many times does it have to be washed away? This doesn't make any sense.

Baptism is the means by which the blood of Christ is applied to the individual. Post baptismal sins are another matter.

This is talking about fear of the Lord. Jesus doesn’t want anyone to come to Him because they fear eternal punishmet. He wants them to come to Him because they love Him.

Yes, ideally, we will come to Him and cling to Him for love. However, fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and coming to save ourselves from sin is not such a bad start.

We aren't nor were we ever God's enemy.

Such a statement is not consitent with the Scriptures.

The righteous works come as a result of our being saved. They are not some required adendum added to Christ’s free gift. That wouldn’t make it free would it?

I agree, they are not an “addendum”. On the contrary, they emanate from the free gift. They are works that have been prepared beforehand from the foundation of the world, that we should walk in them. It is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us. These works are inseparable from the grace which by faith saves us.

So, you are saying, what the apostles taught depends on what you beleive. Another very arrogant statment. The fact is that the gospel has nothing to do with churches or hierachies or eating little peices of bread. What it does have to do with is what Jesus Christ has done for all mankind and that is. He paid the price. I mean, it’s all done. all we have to do is reach out in faith and accept it.

Is this statement part of the answer to my question above? Are you on CAF to “debunk” what Catholics believe, and to promote your alternative gospel?

Nope, again I’m afraid you and your church are wrong.

Actually, I don’t think you are afraid at all. On the contrary, you seem quite confident in your anti-catholic beliefs. But, since you think we are so wrong, what do you hope to accomplish here? You don’t seem to have come here for Catholic Answers.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The Old Testament was not the full Revelation of God’s Word, but when it comes to doctrines regarding death and the afterlife, most Prpotestants prefer the OT over Jesus’ teachings in the NT.

placido

I don’t understand what you mean here. Are you saying that the old testament is not really what God wanted to say, that it is partially what He wanted to say, or that the new testament takes precident over the old testament.

Gen2:16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen3: 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

So, you are saying that these statements are not true. Is that right?

 

[PRmerger]

This statement seems to contradict what the bible says.

3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Whose flesh did Jesus come in the likeness of? Wasn’t it Mary’s flesh?

Whose flesh? Why,* human *flesh of course! Jesus came in the “likeness” or “appearance” of sinful flesh, but, of course, had no sin.

That is, His flesh only “resembled” sinful flesh

like·ness (lkns)
n.

1. The state, quality, or fact of being like; resemblance.
2. An i**mitative **appearance; a semblance.
3. A pictorial, graphic, or sculptured representation of something; an image.

 

[PRmerger]

II beleive that every scripture can be verified by other scriptures.

Where is this in your Bible, Richard?

It would seem that this is a man-made tradition you’ve been taught, for it’s a belief that is no where in Scripture!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Wrong! “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God … have you not read what God said to you, `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living … for to him all are alive” (Matthew 22:29-32, Luke 20:38)

“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25).

Richard, why depend on the incomplete Revelation (Old Testament) when the complete Revelation (New Testament) is so clear?

placido

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Gen2:16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen3: 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

So, you beleive the serpent and not God, Right?

placido, you start out your post above by saying that I am wrong, when all I did was ask a question. I didn’t know that a question could be wrong. Or are you saying that the scriptures that I quote are wrong, You go on to say that the OT is incomplete. Jesus said:
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Jn5:39 Let me ask you another question placido. What scriptures were Jesus talking about here? I hope this question is not wrong.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

This issue was resolved by BRB in post #278. Physical death vs spiritual death.

So, your saying because BRB1 says something, the issue is resolved. I didn’t know BRB1 had such clout.

Again, Richard, this is an issue with semantics.

Semantics: The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form:
Unfortunately whenever humans communicate with words, there are discrepencies in the understanding of the meanings of those words. We have to try and work our way through those inevitable discrepencies

It is quite evident from Scripture that all humans with sin die

It is quite evident from scripture that except for Jesus all have sinned
Heb4:14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Romans 5:Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

and also quite evident from Scripture that all who are in heaven have eternal LIFE and are *not *dead.

Where does it say they are in heaven?

 

[PRmerger]

So, your saying because BRB1 says something, the issue is resolved. I didn’t know BRB1 had such clout.

Mea culpa! * I thought* it was resolved. What don’t you understand still, Richard?

Semantics: The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form:
Unfortunately whenever humans communicate with words, there are discrepencies in the understanding of the meanings of those words. We have to try and work our way through those inevitable discrepencies

What is meant by “the argument is simply about semantics” is that both sides agree and are arguing about essentially…NOTHING!

It is quite evident from scripture that except for Jesus all have sinned

Where does it say that the Blessed Mother sinned? Chapter and verse, please. This verse: Romans 5:Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

would seem to indicate that Jesus himself sinned, too, and we all know that this is not the case! Why would it not also have another exclusion…Our Lady?

Where does it say they are in heaven?

Well, if someone has eternal life, where else would they go? Maybe Purgatory?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No, I don’t.

The serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die” (Gen 3:4) – that was a big lie.

So, you **believe **(thanks for pointing out the correct spelling) that you shall surely die.

Jesus said, “whoever lives and believes in me will never die.” (John 11:25) – that is eternal truth.

How do you reconcile this with Gen2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

[guanophore]

The CC is not Jesus church

Jesus Church is not founded upon Scripture, but upon Himself,as chief cornerstone and the Apostles and prophets as foundation. All modern churches that are “bible based” have strayed to greater or lesser extent from that foundation.

  I don't beleive I said scripture is the pillar and ground of truth. Here is **1Tim3:15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. **  I beleive what pillar and ground of truth is refering to is the living God and not His church.

Both things are true. Jesus makes no distinction between Himself, and His Holy Bride, for whom He gave Himself up.

… a very presumptuous and haughty statement

I guess it would take one to know one…

He built His church upon Himself THE ROCK OF AGES

Yes, and the Apostles and prophets. Not the Scripture. The Church founded by Christ is not a “religion of the book”.

Jesus said Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Jn5:39 While He was talking here primarily about the scriptures that had been written. Do you think that He was excluding the ones that would be written.

Not at all, but in this passage he was not telling them to search. He was upbraiding them because they did search. He was criticizing them because they focused on the scriptures to the exclusion of coming to Him so that they would have life. In the same way, today, you search the scriptures, looking for Christ, yet refuse to come to His Church to find HIm in person.

Actually this command is given to all of us Matt 28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

He was talking to His apostles at the time. But I agree, we all have the responsibility to evangelize and make disciples. We are not to do this in separation from the Successors of the Apsotles.

Since the CC teaches heresy I would invite you along with any other Catholic reading these posts to **Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.Rev 18:4 **

Is that your goal on this forum? Get people to leave the Catholic faith?

You seem to feel very strongly about this. It appears that you have your mind made up, and are not here to get any “catholic answers”.

Jesus was talking to His disciples in luke 10:16He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Since the CC does not teach what He taught this admonition is for it. Again, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Rev 18:4

Richard, if you wish to evangelize Catholics and pull them out of the Church, you are in the wrong place. CAF is not the venue for this activity.

 

[guanophore]

Yelling at your chidren as a means of disciplining your children is not a sin unless it violates the law of love and then it becomes sin that if unrepented of will lead to loss of eternal life.

Seems like a very poor parenting practice. However, that is an issue for another thread!

There is no such thing as venial sin.

You are so contentious that it is hard to keep the thread focused. However, I think this might also belong on another thread.

This doesn’t even make a little sense.

Doesn’t say anything here about Adam’s sin

It sounds like you have a deficient understanding of original sin.

That passage is talking about personal sin, that is why.

No sin is removed by anything man does. I thought you were a Christian. Christians beleive that we are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

You are correct. we believe it is the HS, acting through the waters of baptism, that cleanses us from sin. It is not something "man does’ but something God does. That is why it is called the “washing of regeneration”.

This is all baloney. I think we’re through here. you keep throwing out the same nonsense. I don’t think we need to keep going around in circles. I will pray the Holy Spirit opens your mind to the truth.

I agree about the baloney.

I think we were actually through before we started here, Richard. It seems you came in here with a lot of hostility toward Catholicism, and you are not really willing to explore our faith honestly.

 

[1beleevr]

Richard: Purgatory is the word that the catholic church has given to the purifying process, by which one’s life work(including work done for Christ) is judged! It has been suggested that this process will detrmine the degree of rewards, not whether you get into Heaven or not(providing you are saved)!

 

[placido]

I don’t understand what you mean here. Are you saying that the old testament is not really what God wanted to say, that it is partially what He wanted to say, or that the new testament takes precident over the old testament.

Richard, you know as much as I know that in the Old Testament it was “an eye for an eye”, but in the New Testament it is about turning the other cheek. Not that God was wrong or that He changed his mind. That was His divine plan of eventually leading us to the truth in Jesus Christ. Or, do you still believe in “an eye for an eye”?

Gen2:16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen3: 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
So, you are saying that these statements are not true. Is that right?

Those statements are true, but we must not forget that in the fullness of time God sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, who taught us that whoever believe in Him will not die.

placido

 

[placido]

placido, you start out your post above by saying that I am wrong, when all I did was ask a question. I didn’t know that a question could be wrong.

A question per se cannot be wrong but one can ask a wrong question.

Or are you saying that the scriptures that I quote are wrong, You go on to say that the OT is incomplete. Jesus said:
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Jn5:39 Let me ask you another question placido. What scriptures were Jesus talking about here? I hope this question is not wrong.

No, this time you did not ask a wrong question. Jesus was talking about the Old Testament. Do you think that, without the New Testament, God’s Revelation would be complete? If so, go ahead and remove the New Testament from your Bible.

So, you believe … that you shall surely die.

That is what God said to Adam and that is what Adam should have believed.

How do you reconcile this with Gen2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

I don’t have to reconcile. Jesus, our Savior, has spoken: whoever believes in Him will not die. However, you don’t believe this because of the serpent’s deception in Gen 3:4.

placido

 

[1beleevr]

placido: I don’t believe that James 5:14-16, compels or obligates us to confess our sins to a priest! In fact I believe that the verse says,"Confess your sins to EACH OTHER! Also, 1John 1:9, gives us the option to take confession of sins to HIM. I know that James 5:14 says, “Call the elders from the church to PRAY over you, and you will be healed.” So, thanks to Jesus, I can enter the throneroom of grace(Hebrews 4:16) and confess my sins to Him, and He is faithful to forgive:thumbsup:

 

[1beleevr]

Speaking of God’s Word,in the Old Testament, and the New, it was the same voice!

 

[placido]

placido: I don’t believe that James 5:14-16, compels or obligates us to confess our sins to a priest! In fact I believe that the verse says,"Confess your sins to EACH OTHER! Also, 1John 1:9, gives us the option to take confession of sins to HIM. I know that James 5:14 says, “Call the elders from the church to PRAY over you, and you will be healed.” So, thanks to Jesus, I can enter the throneroom of grace(Hebrews 4:16) and confess my sins to Him, and He is faithful to forgive:thumbsup:

What? You can enter the throneroom of grace and confess your sins to Him? What happened to “confess your sins to EACH OTHER”? Why do we have to confess our sins to fellow men if it is useless?
It is amazing to see how people try to explain away the confession of sins. A fellow human being is need for baptism in Jesus’ name. A fellow human being is needed for the annointing of the sick and the healing prayer that leads to forgiveness of sin. James 5:14-16 says clearly that sins are forgiven after the priest’s prayer.

placido

 

[guanophore]

I’m not denying there are two types of sin, just that they are mortal and venial.

Well, these are Latin terms, and were not used prior to the development of the Latin Rite. However, the same Apostolic concept is present in the Eastern Churches founded by Apostles. I am not sure how this relates to the topic, but Jesus’ cleansing blood pays the price for both types of sins.

Also, if your interpretation of the passage were correct, the Apostle would be saying that we should not pray for a person who is in mortal sin, which does not seem to make sense.

Now, even Catholics beleive that mortal sin if repented of does not lead to death. So what is the only thing left. Well, it’s the sin that is not repented of, Right?

I can see your point, but what I cannot see is why we would not want to pray for such a person.

but how do you get from this post that I am denying that there are two types of sin?

Because you are saying that the quality of the sins is the same. What you are purporting is that one is forgiven, and the other is not. The Apostles taught that some sins are more serious than others…

Ok, placido I see there is nothing I say that you are going to embrace. So I have to leave you to your confused Catholic veiw. There is no one so blind as him who will not see.

Pretty much not. You see, we have held to the Apostolic command to keep the Traditions. One of those is that, if anyone comes along with “a different gospel” than the one committed to us by the Apostles, we will be accursed if we embrace it. We take our salvation vere seriously, and we don’t want to be accursed by embracing what you are bringing.

I do" see" your point of view, though, and I understand how you arrived at it…

I think I explained my position quite clearly in post #240

You did, however, your explanation does not fit all the facts:

Our Lord said to Pilate (John 19:11): ‘He that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin,’ and yet it is evident that Pilate was guilty of some sin. Therefore one sin is greater than another.

Neither of these sins had been forgiven.

See, that’s just it. All sin is serious there is no sin that is “not so”. All sin will keep us from the presence of God through Christ, unless it is repented of.

This is true. But it is also true that some sins are more serious than others. This is why some receive a “light beating” and others a “severe”.

Let’s take a look at 1Jn 5:16-17 again. 16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. You will notice in v. 16 John is talking about intercessory prayer. He mentions it twice in that v. The first time he mentions it, he says there is a sin that is not unto death and we should pray to God for that person and God will give him life. Ok, we got that one. Now he says there is a sin that is unto death and we are not even to pray for the brother that commits this sin. Right? Ok, let me ask you. Does the CC teach that you should not pray for brothers that commit mortal sin? I certainly hope not. So, this sin probably is not the sin that the CC would call mortal. Ok, what is it then. It is my contention that this sin is the unpardonable sin. The unpardonable sin is any sin for which no pardon is asked and if no pardon is asked none will be given. John is here talking of a truely lost soul.

You put your finger on the problem, Richard. The only way your interpretation can make sense is if we are not to pray for those in mortal sin.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Actually, displaying this as a “fact” only makes the ones who do so appear ignorant. There were no bibles published before the Reformation that lacked these. They are among the collection that Jesus and the Apostles considered scripture.

There are many instances in the Apocrapha that contradict the bible. This is “fact” whether you choose to believe it or not. Your saying that I appear ignorant is rude and not at all appreciated I suggest you review the rules of conduct on this forum and follow them.

Where does it say this in your Bible? What makes you believe this is true?

The epistles were written to expand on and elaborate on the four Gospels. I discerned this by reading both. What makes you think that this is not true?

Same question again. where does it say this in your Bible I think this is what you were taught, and it is an extrabiblical belief held by persons who need a reason to reject the Church founded by Christ.

John5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Your tone is quite rude, Richard. Perhaps you have forgotten that you are a guest on a Catholic site? Perhaps you have not recently reviewed the forum rules, which state that, even if you do not agree with our faith, you must at least be courteous.

Tell you what. I’ll quite calling your churches’ doctrine baloney, if you quite calling me (or anyone else) ignorant. Then we can both stop being rude.

Tradition is part of the Authority that was committed by God to the church.

Mark7:7They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’** 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." (NIV translation)

Surely there are many beliefs under the sun with no basis in reality.

Isaiah 28:10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Here is the original post by SHW

God’s Word is filtered through human beings’ minds and they then write God’s Word down. Their own knowledge or lack of knowledge about science and history is sometimes shown in their writings.

To which I replied

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
So you are saying that God’s inspired word is not accurate because it has been filtered by man’s mind. Well that wouldn’t make it inspired at all. The corruption of man’s mind is filtered by God. That’s what makes His word inspired

To which you replied:

No, Richard. This is wrong on several counts. No one is saying that God’s word becomes innacurate because it is filtered through the fallen human mind.

As you can plainly see that is exactly what SHW **is **saying.

The mind of man is corrupt, and inadequate to contain the revelation of God. What we obtain and retain of it is by grace.

And I beleive this is pretty much what I said above. Your misunderstanding of what I am saying is not a little bit irritating, especially when you accuse me of being wrong and then you agree with me.

The inspired word of God is not diminished by the human lack of ablity to grasp it.

Again, you fail to grasp what is being said. I certainly did not say that God’s word is diminished by the “human lack of ablity to grasp it.” You seem to think here that God’s word cannot be understood by man. This is true. By ourselves we cannot know God’s word but though the power of His Spirit we can.

Jn 14:26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Furthermore, there is nothing about man’s mind that “makes His word inspired”. It is inspired because it is God Breathed, not because of the effects it has upon our minds.

Again you misunderstand. What I said was the corruption of man’s mind is filtered out by God and that is what makes the words that man wrote down, the (name removed by moderator)ired word of God.

You know neither the scriptures, nor the power of God.

I don’t understand the reason for this post. Is this some sort of a cheap shot. Now who is being rude.**

 

[1beleevr]

placido: Actually, it does not say that, it says church elders; which could be deacons, etc.! And I wholeheartedly believe in intercessory prayer:thumbsup: I have people calling or texting me or even emailing me, asking for prayer! And people have prayed for, and put hands on me! But, what I am saying, is this: you are not limited to a priest, and Jesus did not tell us to go to the priest for remission of sin; He said, come to Him! If you feel the NEED to go to a priest, then that is fine; but no one should feel compelled to! I have shared with a pastor, a sin that I had already confessed to God, but I didn’t ask for forgivenesss from him! And it is refreshing to be with a group of believers, and share confessed sins, there is support, and trust!