Protestants Regarding (Luke 7:48) & (John 20: 22-23)

[ufamtobie]

There are three stages in the scripture you quote from Matthew. Stages 1 and 2 do not appeart to involve the church. What happens if “thy brother” repents in one of these stages, before the church gets involved? Who forgives/retains the sin?

Simple, the sin that was committed was against another brother, not God.

When someone wrongs me, I must for give that person not matter what he has done I don’t have that Authority that was only given to the Church to retain his sin against me, this is the teaching of Jesus Christ. AMEN

But, to show you that if you take it to the Church, then the Church has this authority to retain sins and when it is retained, or if he does not want to listen to the Church, what did Jesus Christ say? the Answer is to treat him as though He was a heathen or tax collector (ouch)

Wether you like it or not, wether you believe it or not the Church has the Sole Authority to forgive or retain ones sins.

Ufamtobie

 

[ufamtobie]

Don’t mean to ignore, but my reply to this is similar to NoAvailableName, so I’ll skip to the next part…

Well then, three quesitons:

1. Is this Power [To Retain] a direct result of receipt of the Holy Spirit? In other words, by receiving the Holy Spirit one receives this Power, correct? If the answer is “yes” then anyone

Joshua, you are worried I can feel it, you must believe that there is no need to go to confession with a priest, you want to be right on this, you need to be right, because you don’t go, but you are Most Wrong.

Ufamtobie

 

[NoAvailableName]

Simple, the sin that was committed was against another brother, not God.

How is possible to sin against your brother without also sinning against God?

Matthew 25 44-45

They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

 

[Joshua27]

Joshua, you are worried I can feel it, you must believe that there is no need to go to confession with a priest, you want to be right on this, you need to be right, because you don’t go, but you are Most Wrong.

Ufamtobie

You are pretty presumptuous, Ufamtobie…but you HAVE proven my point

If one does not pray for forgiveness or go to confession he must not know Jesus at all, so yeah all his sins are retained

How would a priest know of someone who never went to him to have his sins forgiven OR RETAINED.

…Thus a Priest is not a factor in one’s salvation, because Retention is not caused by a priest onto a sinner, but by sinners onto themselves.

What you called confusing * was none other than “parabolic” (a technique often used by Christ) to explain my point to you.

Powers (authorites) denote “exercise (or use) of, to a specific end”. The Powers of Retention - if it is indeed truly a power - must have the ability to be exercised at a moment of its owner’s choosing. For example: Forgiveness is truly a Power that we ALL possess because at any time we can exercise it onto another person…but this is not the case with Retention because you’ve conveyed that Retention (as a Power) occurs outside of the owner’s [in this case the Church Priest’s] knowledge and authority…which means the Priest (the Church) doesn’t really possess this Power.

More to the point, I was trying to help you realize that without “forgiveness of sins”, "retention of sin"s occurs automatically by default. Forgiveness & Retention are two sides of the same coin as far as status of sin goes. No one needs to be told that they’re sinful or that they’re bound by their sin (as this is not the mission). The mission is to tell people that their sins are forgiven through the act of Christ. We’re on a mission of setting people free, NOT enslaving them.

Now let me share with you a few examples of how to use Forgiveness, the true Power:

Luke 5:20 - "But not finding any way to bring [the sick man] in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down through the tiles with his stretcher, into the middle of the crowd, in front of Jesus.

1. Seeing their faith, He said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven you."

Notice that the sick man did not confess his sins; nothing was required from the sick man (by Christ) as a precondition for forgiving his sins. His sins were forgiven FIRST without anything (much less confession) required from him.

Luke 7:44 - "Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. 47 For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little. 48 Then He said to her, "Your sins have been forgiven.”

Again in this instance, the sinner confessed NOTHING to Christ, but FIRST out of love for Christ, her sins were forgiven. There was no precondition; no judgement prior to forgiveness.

John 8:7 - "But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you? 11 She said, ‘No one, Lord’. And Jesus said, 'I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.’”

Notice in this scene that all others Retained the sins of the harlot (they would not forget her sins), but not Christ…He instead accused the Retainers of their sins (because to Retain IS the act of judging another person), and then Christ said to the woman “go sin no more”.

John 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him."

Likewise, the Son did not send his Apostles into the world to judge the world but to save it through Him; to forgive sins FIRST without precondition [such as what confession is…a precondition], and THEN to teach repentance; to teach others “to sin no more”.*

 

[Erich]

Luke 5:20 - “But not finding any way to bring [the sick man] in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down through the tiles with his stretcher, into the middle of the crowd, in front of Jesus. 21 Seeing their faith, He said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven you.”

Looks like you did not read By What Authority. What about the rest of this passage?
Luke 5:21-25:

Then the scribes and Pharisees began to ask themselves, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who but God alone can forgive sins?” Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them in reply, “What are you thinking in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’’–he said to the man who was paralyzed, “I say to you, rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home.” He stood up immediately before them, picked up what he had been lying on, and went home, glorifying God.”

The sick man did not sin against Jesus the man (though of course all sin is against God); Jesus the man forgiving him is as meaningless as my forgiving you, since you have not sinned against me and therefore have no need of my forgiveness. But Jesus the Son of Man forgiving him is not meaningless.

Luke 7:44 - "Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. 47 For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little. 48 Then He said to her, "Your sins have been forgiven.”

Again, you omitted the following verse: “The others at table said to themselves, ‘Who is this who even forgives sins?’”

What did Jesus just finish doing, earlier in the same chapter, to establish his authority to forgive others’ sins? In Luke 7:1-10 he healed the centurion’s slave, and in Luke 7:11-17 he restored life to the widow’s son. Luke 7:22-23 And he said to them in reply, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the good news proclaimed to them. And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.”

John 8:7 - "But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you? 11 She said, ‘No one, Lord’. And Jesus said, 'I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.’”

And what happened the previous day, in the temple?
"John 7:21-29:

Jesus answered and said to them, “I performed one work and all of you are amazed** because of it**. Moses gave you circumcision–not that it came from Moses but rather from the patriarchs–and you circumcise a man on the sabbath. If a man can receive circumcision on a sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I made a whole person well on a sabbath? Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” So some of the inhabitants of Jerusalem said, “Is he not the one they are trying to kill? And look, he is speaking openly and they say nothing to him. Could the authorities have realized that he is the Messiah? But we know where he is from. When the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from.” So Jesus cried out in the temple area as he was teaching and said, “You know me and also know where I am from. Yet I did not come on my own, but the one who sent me, whom you do not know, is true.** I know him, because I am from him, and he sent me.**”

Jesus’ authority to forgive sins comes from God the Father.

John 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him."

Previous verses: “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

Jesus had the authority to forgive others’ sins because he was sent by God the Father directly. “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.” (John 14:10-12)

Jesus passed on the authority to forgive others’ sins to his Apostles. “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (John 20:21-22) When is the only other time in Scripture that God breathes on anyone? When He “formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

 

[Padrej]

Simple, the sin that was committed was against another brother, not God.

When someone wrongs me, I must for give that person not matter what he has done I don’t have that Authority that was only given to the Church to retain his sin against me, this is the teaching of Jesus Christ. AMEN

But, to show you that if you take it to the Church, then the Church has this authority to retain sins and when it is retained, or if he does not want to listen to the Church, what did Jesus Christ say? the Answer is to treat him as though He was a heathen or tax collector (ouch)

Wether you like it or not, wether you believe it or not the Church has the Sole Authority to forgive or retain ones sins.

Ufamtobie

The Bible tells us that ALL sin is against God
saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

 

[ufamtobie]

How is possible to sin against your brother without also sinning against God?

Matthew 25 44-45

No,

All sin is against God wether it is done to a brother or God, but if you sin/done wrong against your brother you must go up to him and ask for forgiveness and he should forgive you. But there is also another sin, if you sin against God such like break any of the Ten Commandments, now if you break any of the Ten Commandments, do you go to a brother and say forgive me I broke the Ten Commandments OR do you go to God, and make your peace with Him for breaking any or all of the Ten Commandments?

If you sin against a brother, you go to your Brother and to God to ask for forgiveness

If you break any Ten Commandments, you go to Jesus through a priest.

No, did Jesus Christ come in Spirit or in the Flesh?

Ufamtobie

 

[ufamtobie]

ufamtobie;6776015:

The Bible tells us that ALL sin is against God
saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

PadreJ,

Yes, Yes, all sin is committed is a sin against God, Period!

There was a man who wronged his friend, now this friend who was completely sorry for sinning against his friend asked for forgiveness not only to his friend but also to Jesus Christ, for the wrong he done to his friend, for when you have done wrong to a brother you have done wrong to God.

PadreJ, you are a priest, don’t you know these things?

Now, if you committed a personal sin, such as dwelling on bad sinful thoughts, etc you get the picture, right? Well, does this person ask for forgiveness to his mother, a mother, has no authority like the Church has, to forgive sins committed toward a brother or Jesus Christ. Who does this person goes to? He should go to Jesus Christ and there and have his sins forgiven, but then again, is his sin forgiven or retained.

Yes, forgiven or Retained. Jesus Christ knows that we must hear with our ears for this is how God made us, especially, when it comes to a sin, venial or mortal we must hear with our ears that we have been forgiven, therefore the Catholic Church who has the Authority to forgive sins committed to God or to whom ever so that the healing process begins.

Now let say you have done wrong to a brother and you cannot find him, to ask for forgiveness, no worries the Catholic Church has the Authority to forgive that wrong to his brother, because he also wronged to God.

Ufamtobie

 

[Joshua27]

Looks like you did not read By What Authority. What about the rest of this passage?

The sick man did not sin against Jesus the man (though of course all sin is against God); Jesus the man forgiving him is as meaningless as my forgiving you, since you have not sinned against me and therefore have no need of my forgiveness. But Jesus the Son of Man forgiving him is not meaningless.

Again, you omitted the following verse: “The others at table said to themselves, ‘Who is this who even forgives sins?’”

What did Jesus just finish doing, earlier in the same chapter, to establish his authority to forgive others’ sins? In Luke 7:1-10 he healed the centurion’s slave, and in Luke 7:11-17 he restored life to the widow’s son. Luke 7:22-23 And he said to them in reply, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the good news proclaimed to them. And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.”

And what happened the previous day, in the temple?

Jesus’ authority to forgive sins comes from God the Father.

Previous verses: “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

Jesus had the authority to forgive others’ sins because he was sent by God the Father directly. “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.” (John 14:10-12)

Jesus passed on the authority to forgive others’ sins to his Apostles. “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (John 20:21-22) When is the only other time in Scripture that God breathes on anyone? When He “formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

Forgive me, but I’m missing your point in this reply. Is it a counter-argument to my point that “Retention is not a Power; Forgiveness is the True Power bestowed by the Holy Spirit” (concerning the thread’s verses)? Or are you arguing against “how to properly use the Power of Forgiveness”? …because the Authority/Source of the Power was already implied (as being from the Holy Spirit > from God), which is what Ufamtobi established at the beginning of his thread and our debate.

 

[NoAvailableName]

First you said…

Simple, the sin that was committed was against another brother, not God.

Now you say…

No,

All sin is against God wether it is done to a brother or God

It is difficult to have a discussion with someone that inconsistent.

 

[Erich]

Forgive me, but I’m missing your point in this reply.

In earliers post you claimed that “the Priest (the Church) doesn’t really possess this Power [or Retention]” and that “that we all - who confess Christ as our Master & Savior - have become apostles” (emphases yours).

In answer to the first of these claims, the Church does possess the power of retention. It was originally granted to the Apostles (see John 20:22-23) and passed on via apostolic succession. I will note that the Bible actually makes references to the first four generations of apostolic succession (Paul told Timothy in 2 Tim. 2:2, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”); they are Paul’s own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation *they *will teach.

In answer to the second of these claims, we have *not *all become apostles, in the sense that we do *not *all have the authority – specified in Scripture – that is associated with apostles/pastors/overseers/elders/bishops/ambassadors-for-Christ.

 

[Joshua27]

In earliers post you claimed that “the Priest (the Church) doesn’t really possess this Power [or Retention]” and that “that we all - who confess Christ as our Master & Savior - have become apostles” (emphases yours).

In answer to the first of these claims, the Church does possess the power of retention. It was originally granted to the Apostles (see John 20:22-23) and passed on via apostolic succession. I will note that the Bible actually makes references to the first four generations of apostolic succession (Paul told Timothy in 2 Tim. 2:2, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”); they are Paul’s own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation *they *will teach.

In answer to the second of these claims, we have *not *all become apostles, in the sense that we do *not *all have the authority – specified in Scripture – that is associated with apostles/pastors/overseers/elders/bishops/ambassadors-for-Christ.

[Ok, now I understand…]

May I ask…

If Christ gave the Apostles the Holy Spirit, and as such also giving them the Authority. Who later gave authority to Paul if authority was already given to the 12 while Christ was alive? If Apostolic Succession is an “unbroken chain or bridge” [my phrasing] of authority, Christ himself broke that chain in the very beginning by visiting Paul in a vision on the road to Damascus (I think this was the road?), which was AFTER he breathed onto the Apostles and AFTER the gift of the HS was given at Pentecost.

If authority is only passed via Apostolic Succession then Christ broke his own rule at the very beginning, unless Apostilic Succession isn’t the true “chain or bridge”, but the Holy Spirit is…and if the Holy Spirit is the true “chain or bridge”, then anyone who receives the Holy Spirit receives this Authority out of succession…just like Paul.

 

[Erich]

If authority is only passed via Apostolic Succession then Christ broke his own rule at the very beginning, unless Apostilic Succession isn’t the true “chain or bridge”, but the Holy Spirit is…and if the Holy Spirit is the true “chain or bridge”, then anyone who receives the Holy Spirit receives this Authority out of succession…just like Paul.

Clearly, you still haven’t read By What Authority?

If you had, you’d already know that there are two ways for a man to be granted the authority and responsibility of apostle/pastor/overseer/elder/bishop/ambassador-for-Christ. He must be sent by God, either indirectly (via succession), or directly (via extraordinary calling). If the latter, his mission must be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders as proof of his Divine vocation; even Jesus submitted to this proof-test (recall my earlier remarks about Luke 5:21-25, Luke 7:1-10, Luke 7:11-17, Luke 7:22-23, John 7:21-29, etc.)

 

[Joshua27]

Clearly, you still haven’t read By What Authority?

If you had, you’d already know that there are two ways for a man to be granted the authority and responsibility of apostle/pastor/overseer/elder/bishop/ambassador-for-Christ. He must be sent by God, either indirectly (via succession), or directly (via extraordinary calling). If the latter, his mission must be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders as proof of his Divine vocation; even Jesus submitted to this proof-test (recall my earlier remarks about Luke 5:21-25, Luke 7:1-10, Luke 7:11-17, Luke 7:22-23, John 7:21-29, etc.)

You must forgive me but if my comments have conveyed nothing else I have conveyed the sentiment that I don’t believe in the authority of the CC, so how can I possibly rely on an apologetic doctrine for an explanation? The only common ground under each arguing party is scripture…which is why I’ve commented to your references and not your doctrine. So if you can convince me of your argument with scripture I will concede, until then…

---

False prophets also have the ability of signs and wonders (called “lying signs and wonders” [2 Thessalonians 2:9]).

Also Christ said that only “a wicked and adulterous generation looks for miraclulous signs” (Matthew 16:4) and that “false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect–if that were possible.” [Matthew 24:24] - so “miracles” isn’t good proof of one being sent by God as even Satan and his brood can perform miracles.

(1) Anyone who confesses Christ salvific act for their lives is of the body of christ [Romans 10:9-10].

(2) In the body of Christ there are many members each who hold different tasks and gifts bestowed by the Holy Spirit but each are equal members [Romans 12:5; 1 Cor. 12].

(3) However, all of the body of Christ have received God’s seed within them [1 John 3:9] which makes them children of God (as Christ is called the “firstborn” of many bretheren who are all “coheirs”) [Romans 8:17].

So the question is “what did Christ inherit from God that we are coheirs of (as it pertains to our currently unfinished mission)?”

Answer: Authority (to tread serpents and demons, to confess the gospel and to forgive sins [among other things])

 

[Erich]

I don’t believe in the authority of the CC

Ah, the whole point of the OP in the first place… So then, what authority do you believe in?

The only common ground under each arguing party is scripture…which is why I’ve commented to your references and not your doctrine.

Clearly you haven’t even looked at (much less read) By What Authority? If you had, you’d have seen 9 pages of Scripture references – and 0 pages of Catechism references, encyclical references etc. In other words, 9 pages of common ground – so no more excuses for not reading it in its entirety!

If even Jesus submitted to the proof-test of miracles, how can any mere man exempt himself from this same test, unless he wishes to say he is greater than even Jesus? Yes, even Satan and his brood can perform miracles… but miracles are still required as verification of one’s extraordinary calling (think Moses, the Apostles, Jesus). “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it.” (2 Tim 3:14) Miracles or no, false teachings are (or, at least, ought to be) suspect if for no other reason than they do not agree with (or logically follow from) what has been taught up until that time.

Rom 12:5 “so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another” and 1 Cor 12:12 “As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ” – you seem to be equating dignity and role. They’re not equal… that would be like equating opportunity and outcome. You also conveniently skipped over 1 Cor 12:4-6 “There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.” Needless to say, just as not everyone receives the same gifts, so also not everyone receives authority over others… only apostles/pastors/overseers/elders/bishops/ambassadors-for-Christ.

Romans 8:16-17 “The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.” – It is one thing for Jesus to earn all forgiveness and grace once for all, but another thing for us to receive it. We are saved and made holy if and to the extent that we are made members of Christ and made like him.

In answer to my question at the beginning of this post, it would appear that you are relying on the authority of Scripture. So, after you have read By What Authority? please demonstrate for us the following:

a) where in the Bible it says that the Bible is the only rule of faith,

b) how you know which books belong in the Bible in the first place, and

c) proof that you have the authority to interpret the Bible (i.e. the text itself, not others’ interpretations of the text) for you and that your interpretations will always be accurate.

 

[Joshua27]

Hi again…I took the time to study the document in its entirety.

Ah, the whole point of the OP in the first place… So then, what authority do you believe in?

The Authority of the Law. Obedience to the Law superseeds all authority. Anyone who promotes the eternal laws of God has the authority to spread the gospel, and anyone who isn’t obedient to it does not have the authority.

---

The argument of the document is that “The mission (and the message) can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it…they can’t just take it.”

To prove this example, the writer cites Paul’s letter to timothy, saying, “Scripture shows that only the Apostles are ‘entrusted’ with the care of the Gospel message.”

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.” (1 Tim. 6:20)

“…guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim. 1:14

Again, the writer concludes that “The mission and the message can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it.” However, note what the writer is overlooking; Paul (himself) admits that the message (and subsequently mission) wasn’t given to Timothy by Paul but by the Holy Spirit. Paul never claimed to give Timothy the message (and mission)…thus the chain of authority that the writer establishes as the foundation of his argument is incorrect.

His Argument: God the Father > The Son > Apostles

The Truth: God the Father > The Son > **The Holy Spirit (breathed on them; tongues of fire) **> Apostle

(…and the Holy Spirit is still here on earth.)

Paul is clear in the above passage [sourced from the document] that the message was give to Timothy by the Holy Spirit, implying that even though Paul spoke the words to Timothy, it was not Paul giving the message but the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is considered a “person”; the comforter/helper (depending on your translation). It was/is the Holy Spirit which “writes” the message (and thus mission) on the hearts of an apostle, not another man.

The writer then concludes that Timothy is also an apostles because he now possesses the message (and thus, mission) even though his apostleship isn’t directly defined.

The correct conclusion of this point is “an apostle = anyone who receives the message (thus the mission) from the Holy Spirit”…and the Holy Spirit is not bound to any man…and the Holy Spirit is who was sent here [still here] when the Son departed.

---

To the writer’s next point about ‘Fathers & Sons’; note that while the Father did create Adam (breathing on him, thus making him in His likeness) - and likewise, the Son for his Apostles (breathed on them) - Adam (through his choices) was not bound by his Father’s likeness, and from the point of Adam’s sin he was no longer in God’s image even though Adam was in succession. Genesis even specifically mentions that Adam’s children are “of the generation of Adam (Gen. 5:1), not of ‘God/Heaven & Earth’ (Gen. 2:4)…”

Upon the moment of sin, we know Adam lost his “authority” thus his children and children’s children subsequently did not have it either even in succession from Adam…(until the Son’s first Advent, of course).

My point is authority is not bound by succession but by obedience to the “image & likeness” which is conferred by the source, otherwise authorty is lost.

The Father to Adam…until Adam changed his image.

The Son to Apostles…who didn’t changed the image.

Paul to Timothy…who didn’t changed the image.

Apostles to Church Fathers…until they changed the image (message).

<<continued in Part 2>>

 

[Joshua27]

<Part 2>

---

Finally the writer speaks about being a “man of God”, as one who is bestowed authority directly by the Holy Spirit (as an extrodinary case)…yet “Part 1”’ of my answer (essentially) proves that there is no such thing as “apostolic succession” per say, because in each case there’s a substantial implication that it’s the Holy Spirit - not the specific apostle - who bestows authority onto a successor…the apostle is just a vessel in these instances.

The writer defines a “man of God” saying, "A man must be called by God to hold this title of “man of God.” The writer then defines the process of apostolic succession by (once again) quoting 2 Tim. 1:6, 14: “guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.”

Again, this verse explicitly states that the Holy Spirit entrusted the truth to apostle. Again, we believe the Holy Spirit is a person. HE is the one superior who bestowed the authority…and (again) He’s still here to continue.

So the true challenge for the writer’s (and your) point of “Apostolic Succession” is to prove that not all within the body of Christ receives the Holy Spirit…since He is the one who bestows authority.

If even Jesus submitted to the proof-test of miracles, how can any mere man exempt himself from this same test, unless he wishes to say he is greater than even Jesus?

The proof-test is not with miracles. The proof-test in authenticity - since before the Son’s incarnation - has always been obeience to the laws of God; these are they who are from God. God [Old testament] even told Israel that false prophets (who will display similar signs and wonders) would test the hearts of those who claim obedience to God’s Laws, and they would know if the prophet is true or false by seeing whether or not they supported those laws or changed them [Deuteronomy 13:1-3].

Jer. 14:14 then proves that these prophets (who possess signs & wonders) can lie.

The writer (himself) claims that “In the exceptional, extraordinary case, Scripture requires the proof of miracles, signs, and wonders for authenticity”…but this is his personal assumption. Scripture doesn’t “require” proof; it simply details it. It was - and is - “people” who “require” proof (simply because many lack the faith to believe otherwise).

The Son essentially said "IF [specifically using the word “IF”] you will not believe (what I say), [implied **“then”] see my works and believe in them. [John 10:37-38].

Yes, even Satan and his brood can perform miracles… but miracles are still required as verification of one’s extraordinary calling (think Moses, the Apostles, Jesus). “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it.” (2 Tim 3:14) Miracles or no, false teachings are (or, at least, ought to be) suspect if for no other reason than they do not agree with (or logically follow from) what has been taught up until that time.

I COMPLETELY agree with your verse. Now…weren’t the eternal laws taught from old? By your same logic, the SAME “instructions” that were taught to the Israelites should be taught today, correct…and whoever deviates from those original instructions is (by default) a false teacher. The Laws the Christian Church teaches today are (indeed) a deviation from the original instructions because the Church believes it has the Authority - and thus the right - to change those original instructions. But - as defined by the writer’s paper - “the authority” is directly tied to “the message”…if the message changes so goes the authority.

Needless to say, just as not everyone receives the same gifts, so also not everyone receives authority over others… only apostles/pastors/overseers/elders/bishops/ambassadors-for-Christ.

You’re incorrectly drawing the conclusion that “authority” is another “particular gift of the HS”, when the message (and thus mission as bestowed by the HS) IS the “authority”. All have authority to spread the gospel, but people have different administrative tasks.

<<Continuted in Part 3>>

 

[Joshua27]

In answer to my question at the beginning of this post, it would appear that you are relying on the authority of Scripture. So, after you have read By What Authority? please demonstrate for us the following:

a) where in the Bible it says that the Bible is the only rule of faith,

No. The Bible and the Word of God is not the same thing. If the two are the same, saying the CC created the bible is the same as saying the CC created the Word of God, which (of course) is false. I claim The Eternal Law/Plan is indeed the ONLY rule of authority, which was incorrectly translated from “logos” as “The Word” in John 1:1.

b) how you know which books belong in the Bible in the first place, and

[This is based on the answer you assumed I’d give in “a”] You’re asking me to determine which books should belong to the biblios that the CC formed. If I must answer…anything that supports the eternal law/plan of God is a book from God and should be included.

c) proof that you have the authority to interpret the Bible (i.e. the text itself, not others’ interpretations of the text) for you and that your interpretations will always be accurate.

Again, to answer this question we must ask, “is the Holy Spirit only within certain members of the Body of Christ or within everyone?” It is the Holy Spirit of God who teaches and proves with wisdom when asked.

James 1:5 “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”

The passage says to ask God directly, not another man…and we’ve already established that one who receives the message receives the **authority **to carry out the mission…

But specifically one’s interpretation must ALWAYS be in a context of Hebew culture (not modern Jewish culture) for it to be accurate.

The Torah & the Prophetic books were given to Israelites…their instructions and feasts are based on them…even the Son, the gospel writers and Paul maintained the Hebrew mindset. So ALL interpretation of scripture should come from a Hebrew mindset & follow the Torah, for instance:

• Luke 1:35 records Gabriel giving Mary the prophecy of the Messiah…and when most people read the phrase “holy one” it has been incorrectly interpreted because they were not reading from a Hebrew mindset. “Holy One” is an ancient Hebrew term which means the “first” child who penetrates the womb; the firstborn. Without this context, many interpretations were rendered incorrectly as “the child that is born to you will be called Holy- Son of God”, when it really says, “your firstborn will be called son of God…” because all firstborns are “holy” in the eyes of God.
• The concept of being “in” someone (as in when the Son said “I am in the Father”) can’t be understood outside of Hebrew context. The ancient Hebrews understood that “to be in someone” is to be in that person’s “mind or plan”. Which is how we should understand such comments as “crucified before the foundation of the world”, and “In the beginning was the Logos[Plan] and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God”, and “before abraham was, I am”. The plan of the Messiah (not necessarily the person) was established in the mind of God from the very beginning…but this is a discussion for another time.
• Even the commission to “baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” causes several interpretation errors when not view from a Hebrew minset:

1. The word baptize, which is left untranslated, is from the Hebrew concept which literally means “immersion”.
2. While many understand the instructions given in this passage, not many understand the importance of a “name” from a Hebrew mindset. One’s name carried one’s identity and authority, which is why not only did the Father name the Son, but the Father gave the Son the Father’s own name…which doesn’t necessarily lend itself to a Trinity but to “bestowing all authority in heaven & earth”.
3. The Name is a Hebrew name, not an angelicized greek name. The name Must be the Hebrew name given by Gavriel.
4. The Son said that the Holy Spirit would be sent in His name, which means his literal name (as well as authority).

So from a Hebrew mindset, this passage proves that there is only one name that holds all authority; one name to baptize [immerse] in; one name above all names…the Name of Yehushua…the single name of the Eternal Father, Begotten Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Erich]

Paul (himself) admits that the message (and subsequently mission) wasn’t given to Timothy by Paul but by the Holy Spirit. Paul never claimed to give Timothy the message (and mission)
…
even though his [Timothy’s] apostleship isn’t directly defined.

Oh, really?

2 Timothy 1:13-14 (Douay-Rheims)

                                               13                 Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard **of me**: in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.             14                 Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 (King James Version)

13Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
14That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 (New American Bible)

13Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 14Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 (New International Version)

13What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

So far, every translation I’ve checked is pretty clear on the fact that Timothy heard the message from Paul. I can only assume yours does, too.

 

[Erich]

The Father to Adam…until Adam changed his image.

The Son to Apostles…who didn’t changed the image.

Paul to Timothy…who didn’t changed the image.

Apostles to Church Fathers…until they changed the image (message).

I of course do not accept your assertion that the image (message) was *ever *changed by the Church Fathers. You’re going to have to conclusively establish when, precisely, this (supposedly) occurred.

Since your subsequent posts proceed on the (incorrect) assumption that the message was changed by the Church Fathers at some point, your arguments only carry weight once you prove your assertion.