Protestant that agree...

[ncgolf]

Then show me one instance where men and women came to the Apostles to personally get their sins absolved. In what city did Paul practice this procedure? Show me where Peter practiced this in Jerusalem. Show me where it’s documented in Rome.

From what I have read the specific instance you seek is not recorded but I do not find that to be an important piece of the puzzle. I would rather look at what is written rather than what is not written. Looking for text that is not there let’s one off the hook easy.

But from what I see now 2000 years later this practice still exists in the same Church started by Christ … it is oral (meaning the Priest (the person acting in persona Christo) ) can hear my sins … make a judgement on my intention to try not commit those further and grant me forgiveness through the power of Jesus Christ.

There is nothing unscriptural about this. It follows John 20:23 to the letter meaing Jesus meant sin and Jesus meant forgiving.

 

[jmcrae]

No. But through the cross of Christ ALL the work (substitutionary blood sacrifice) was accomplished, once for all, so that when a sinner turns from unbelief to belief in Jesus Christ through the preaching of the gospel, his/her sins are forever forgiven. That’s the power God Himself has through the cross.

]

Christ’s death on the Cross was not “substitutionary” - we still die. It was to open the door and pave the way We still have to go through the door and follow the way, though.

It wasn’t to forgive sins. God does that Himself upon belief in His Son. If your faith rests in your church rather than the Son, in respect to the forgiveness of your sins, you’re in trouble.

There is no “rather than.” Jesus works through the Church to forgive my sins. The Church is a machine for communicating with Jesus.

The church, made up of all true believers since Pentecost, is Christ’s bride, made pure (righteous) through His blood. And she will have that identity for all eternity.I have never seen posted on the walls of every local Catholic parish the pictures of those the Pope excommunicated, that they might be identified and refused Communion. Who’s the last person Rome excommunicated, btw? Do you know who he/she is?

Joe Clark is the last one I am aware of. Not sure if John Kerry was excommunicated, or not; if so, it would have been after Joe Clark. (Why would anyone put pictures of them up in the Church?)

The man in Corinth was excommunicated (locally) for having his father’s wife (who, btw, was not his mother).

So, he could have gone to Thessalonica and been received as a Christian in good standing?

Historically, priests, nuns, prelates and popes did far worse crimes and were never excommunicated.

Yes, they were, actually - if they did that, or worse, then yes they were.

The man in Corinth repented because of the punishment inflicted on him (locally). I would say the punishment was affective.

Did you mean “effective”? (I am not sure that “punishment” has the ability to experience emotions. Or did you mean that the punishment was emotional (affective) in nature?) We are not told what the effect of excommunication was on the man - perhaps he justified himself and started up a new church, or perhaps he stayed home and decided not to try to be a Christian anymore, or else maybe he turned from his sins, went to Confession, and was reinstated in the Church.

 

[2ndGen]

No, you back your horse up and start practicing what you preach, or get out of the hypocrisy saddle. YOU were the first to post that title on this thread:

 

[2ndGen]

Moondweller,

Come on now. I’ve answered your question. How’s about you answer mine:

Are the following words Scriptural:

Bible

Trinity

Rapture

Pentecostal

Computer

And if they are not, are they then “not” worthy of our believing that they exist today?

 

[moondweller]

]

Christ’s death on the Cross was not “substitutionary” - we still die. It was to open the door and pave the way We still have to go through the door and follow the way, though.

John 11:25 :Jesus said to her, “**I am **the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,”

John 10:9 “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.”

There is no “rather than.” Jesus works through the Church to forgive my sins.

Jesus’ work was finished on the cross that your sins would be forgiven when you put your faith in Him.

The Church is a machine for communicating with Jesus.

Ever try faith in Christ alone, and then prayer? Far more personal than a “machine.”

 

[jmcrae]

John 11:25 :Jesus said to her, “**I am **the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,”

John 10:9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture."Jesus’ work was finished on the cross that your sins would be forgiven when you put your faith in Him.Ever try faith in Christ alone, and then prayer? Far more personal than a “machine.”

“Alone” doesn’t work for me; I end up praying to myself, instead of to Jesus.

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller,

Come on now. I’ve answered your question. How’s about you answer mine:

Are the following words Scriptural:

Bible

Trinity

Rapture

Pentecostal

Computer

And if they are not, are they then “not” worthy of our believing that they exist today?

Why would you want answers from someone you consider a pathological liar?

 

[2ndGen]

“Alone” doesn’t work for me; I end up praying to myself, instead of to Jesus.

Catholics do have faith in Christ alone…first!

Then we have faith in everything He said (like when He authorized The Apostles to work on His behalf, when He started His Church, etc…).

Does having faith in Christ alone mean to Moondweller that we only accept Jesus and reject those who Jesus sent out to us?

Let’s see what Jesus said about having faith in Jesus alone and in rejecting those He sent to us:

Luke 10:16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me. Whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

So, if we listen to Jesus “alone” then we have to do what He says and we have to accept others to teach us.

 

[2ndGen]

Why would you want answers from someone you consider a pathological liar?

A) I never called you or considered you a pathological lier.

B) Is this your attempt to continue to avoid answering my questions?

 

[moondweller]

“Alone” doesn’t work for me; I end up praying to myself, instead of to Jesus.

Odd that you didn’t see the word “Christ” before the word “alone.”

 

[moondweller]

Catholics do have faith in Christ alone…first!

Then we have faith in everything He said (like when He authorized The Apostles to work on His behalf, when He started His Church, etc…).

Does having faith in Christ alone mean to Moondweller that we only accept Jesus and reject those who Jesus sent out to us?

Let’s see what Jesus said about having faith in Jesus alone and in rejecting those He sent to us:

Luke 10:16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me. Whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

So, if we listen to Jesus “alone” then we have to do what He says and we have to accept others to teach us.

I didn’t say “listen” to Him alone. And Jesus didn’t say “He who has faith in you has *faith *in Me.”

But then what does a pathological liar know? Right?

 

[jmcrae]

Odd that you didn’t see the word “Christ” before the word “alone.”

My point is that there is no such thing as “Christ alone.” If I get rid of all of my spiritual support systems, Christ goes, too.

 

[2ndGen]

I didn’t say “listen” to Him alone. And Jesus didn’t say “He who has faith in you has *faith *in Me.”

But then what does a pathological liar know? Right?

Hitler was a Pathological Lier, but he knew alot…so being a Pathological Lier doesn’t make someone ignorant.

Now, that I’ve answered your question (again)…will you answer mine about words or phrases that “aren’t” in The Bible but that Christians consider either existant or “Scriptural”?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote jmcrae:
The Church is a machine for communicating with Jesus.

Ever try faith in Christ alone, and then prayer? Far more personal than a “machine.”

What does “faith in Christ alone” mean?

Does that mean not having faith in The Father? Or the Holy Spirit?

What Moon means by “machine” is not a thing that separates us from our conversation partner but that which makes communication more intimate and meaningful.

One could say that all we need is a Palauan Dictionary to communicate with a speaker of that language, but why not take some classes and bring along an absolutely trustworthy translator when the goal is to most intimately communicate with our new Palauan friend?

Doesn’t God speak our language, which makes learning “Palauan” unnecessary?

Does God not speak a “language” that you in fact DO need “experts” to understand? He does speak our language, but our language is not His native language and part of His gift to us is that we should learn some of His language, as well as accept what He condescends to say to us in our own language.

Is it not somewhat “odd” to refuse a portion of God’s wisdom because it’s “unnecessary”?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

…will you answer mine about words or phrases that “aren’t” in The Bible but that Christians consider either existant or “Scriptural”?

Since the bible is only a portion of the Deposit of Faith, those “words and phrases” that are true but not “in the bible” (however you mean that) are from some other portion of the full Deposit of Faith.

Is that clear enough?

 

[2ndGen]

What does “faith in Christ alone” mean?

Does that mean not having faith in The Father? Or the Holy Spirit?

What Moon means by “machine” is not a thing that separates us from our conversation partner but that which makes communication more intimate and meaningful.

One could say that all we need is a Palauan Dictionary to communicate with a speaker of that language, but why not take some classes and bring along an absolutely trustworthy translator when the goal is to most intimately communicate with our new Palauan friend?

Doesn’t God speak our language, which makes learning “Palauan” unnecessary?

Does God not speak a “language” that you in fact DO need “experts” to understand? He does speak our language, but our language is not His native language and part of His gift to us is that we should learn some of His language, as well as accept what He condescends to say to us in our own language.

Is it not somewhat “odd” to refuse a portion of God’s wisdom because it’s “unnecessary”?

If we’re to have faith in Christ alone, then that means that we cannot have faith in scripture then, right?

Most people have come to Christ by Scripture, so they would all have discard anything Scripture teaches…even The Gospel?

Does anybody else see the contradiction and self-exterminating nature of that statement that we are to have faith in Christ alone?

 

[2ndGen]

Since the bible is only a portion of the Deposit of Faith, those “words and phrases” that are true but not “in the bible” (however you mean that) are from some other portion of the full Deposit of Faith.

Is that clear enough?

LOL!

You are preaching to the choir CDWW!

But I want to hear what Moondweller believes since he asserts that because certain phrases aren’t in The Holy Bible, they are not to be believed.

I’m still waiting for him to answer me.

:coffeeread:

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

If we’re to have faith in Christ alone, then that means that we cannot have faith in scripture then, right?

Uh, no. We have faith in The Holy Trinity and all things revealed by God to have faith in.

Can we agree on that one?

Most people have come to Christ by Scripture, so they would all have discard anything Scripture teaches…even The Gospel?

Most people come to Christ by people telling them about God, which is what “gospel” means, which is a tradition of God’s people that predates the bible.

Why would anyone want to discard anything that reinforces and promotes such a beautiful tradition?

Does anybody else see the contradiction and self-exterminating nature of that statement that we are to have faith in Christ alone?

The phrase “Christ alone” is meaningless, because there are so many things that the “thing” Christ is unalienably connected to that which would NEED to be separate from “Christ” that the very utterance of “Christ alone” is self-contradictory, and therefore certainly not “of God”.

So I suppose we agree that “Christ alone” is silly. Nice to agree with someone for a change!

 

[2ndGen]

Uh, no. We have faith in The Holy Trinity and all things revealed by God to have faith in.

Can we agree on that one?

Most people come to Christ by people telling them about God, which is what “gospel” means, which is a tradition of God’s people that predates the bible.

Why would anyone want to discard anything that reinforces and promotes such a beautiful tradition?

The phrase “Christ alone” is meaningless, because there are so many things that the “thing” Christ is unalienably connected to that which would NEED to be separate from “Christ” that the very utterance of “Christ alone” is self-contradictory, and therefore certainly not “of God”.

So I suppose we agree that “Christ alone” is silly. Nice to agree with someone for a change!

I agree with intelligent people all the time!

 

[moondweller]

Hitler was a Pathological Lier, but he knew alot…so being a Pathological Lier doesn’t make someone ignorant.

What you’ll learn in the “art” of apologetics is that when someone can’t support their position they’ll usually resort to ad hominem style messages.

Now, that I’ve answered your question (again)…will you answer mine about words or phrases that “aren’t” in The Bible but that Christians consider either existant or “Scriptural”?

Sure, the answer is “no.” They’re not literally found in Scripture. Although this argument has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

Now, I’ll ask you: Is it true Satan is the fourth person of the Godhead?