Reformers:1) SS is right, 2) The Bible is wrong...

[rpp]

I am attempting to address the issue at hand, which is Sola Scriptura. You keep attempting to lodge attacks against people instead of talking about Sola Scriptura.

BTW: I made a truthful comment about papal bulls and you responded with an attack against me. Possibly you would like to start telling everyone how I am pseudo pro-life again and see what happens to your account.

Do you really think pretending to be a victim and fantasizing about imaginary insults really helps you to grow closer to God? I now know the level of respect and credibility to give to your statements. Are they even on topic?

You still have not addressed the facts that I posted earlier. Rather than inventing some new category of insult, which have never been implied by anyone and are utterly unrelated to the topic, try staying with the subject, respond to te sutance of the posts and not continue to make personal attacks. And no, I never personally attacked you; I challenged you with facts. Fact which you ignored and began your chain of personal attacks.

I would like to remind you that personal attacks and are against forum rules and ad hominum posts are strongly discouraged.

 

[michaelsmth626]

How is it we are delving into baptism on a thread focusing on Sola Scriptura and Luther? There is a plethora of information on this site for you to absorb which will readily provide you with the knowledge that water baptism is a necessary application of the Spirit of God within the believer. Perhaps we can continue to strive to keep the focus of the thread where the OP wants it to be.

Blessings.

Because it indicates the different teaching that are based on the scriptures alone or traditions as you call them. The implication is in contrast not in harmony. Tradition says that water is the only method that the HS is transmitted baptism, the SS says differently. So people should know the whole truth you ether believe what the NT letters say or you believe what others say, pretty simple isn’t it?

 

[SimonArizona]

Because it indicates the different teaching that are based on the scriptures alone or traditions as you call them. The implication is in contrast not in harmony. Catholic Tradition ** and Sacred Scripture** says that water is the -]only/-]“Jesus breathed on them saying receive the Holy Spirit.” method that the Holy Spirit is transmitted baptism, the SS says differently. So people should know the whole truth you ether believe what the NT letters say or you believe what others say, pretty simple isn’t it?

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,

Act 8:15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,

Act 8:16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

 

[SteveGC]

Because it indicates the different teaching that are based on the scriptures alone or traditions as you call them. The implication is in contrast not in harmony. Tradition says that water is the only method that the HS is transmitted baptism, the SS says differently. So people should know the whole truth you ether believe what the NT letters say or you believe what others say, pretty simple isn’t it?

No. The necessity of water baptism is not merely Traditional. It is quite scriptural as well.

Because you disagree with the Catholic understanding of baptism, you claim it is non-scriptural and therefore traditional. We say it is both. So…this argument is only on-topic if we all agreed that the Catholic teaching on baptism is not found in scripture. We don’t agree with that premise.

Your notion that people “either believe what the NT letters say or they believe what others say”, is a false dichotomy. What the NT letters say IS what others are saying. The NT letters themselves don’t SAY anything. Humans SAY things, like YOU are “saying” what the NT letters about baptism mean. You set this up as if the Catholic Church is the only one that uses humans as the primary means of interpreting Scripture…as opposed to your faulty notion that Scripture just speaks for itself. That’s ridiculous. You didn’t come up with your beliefs about baptism by reading Scripture first. Someone told you what it meant, and then you read Scripture in light of what and how they told you, and then you decided to believe it…never once considering to verify the authenticity or validity of the teaching ministry that that someone that told you possesses. Now THAT is the crux of the SS argument. By what authority do the teachers who have taught you what Scripture means come to you?

 

[Drawmack]

Sure. Confirmation. and Anointing of the Sick

Each of these links only has one reference to the Gospels among its quoted verses. And neither of these links shows Jesus performing, or instructing others to perform, these sacraments.

 

[Drawmack]

How is it we are delving into baptism on a thread focusing on Sola Scriptura and Luther? There is a plethora of information on this site for you to absorb which will readily provide you with the knowledge that water baptism is a necessary application of the Spirit of God within the believer. Perhaps we can continue to strive to keep the focus of the thread where the OP wants it to be.

Blessings.

Well, if you look into the historicity of Sola Scriptura you’ll see that it is directly related to the sacraments. The Catholic Church taught, teaches, that Truth comes to us from both scripture and tradition. Luther taught that the Truth comes to us through scripture and not tradition. Thus the term Sola Scriptura is a kind of misnomer and is directly related to the sacraments.

 

[michaelsmth626]

No. The necessity of water baptism is not merely Traditional. It is quite scriptural as well.

The NT letters themselves don’t SAY anything.

Really then I should think we should all throw your books in the fire.

Now THAT is the crux of the SS argument. By what authority do the teachers who have taught you what Scripture means come to you?

And by whos authority do you make the statement. The NT letters themselves don’t SAY anything.

 

[Drawmack]

Do you really think pretending to be a victim and fantasizing about imaginary insults really helps you to grow closer to God? I now know the level of respect and credibility to give to your statements. Are they even on topic?

You still have not addressed the facts that I posted earlier. Rather than inventing some new category of insult, which have never been implied by anyone and are utterly unrelated to the topic, try staying with the subject, respond to te sutance of the posts and not continue to make personal attacks. And no, I never personally attacked you; I challenged you with facts. Fact which you ignored and began your chain of personal attacks.

I would like to remind you that personal attacks and are against forum rules and ad hominum posts are strongly discouraged.

I haven’t addressed them because they are off topic. If you want to discuss those thing PM me or start a new thread.

 

[SteveGC]

Well, if you look into the historicity of Sola Scriptura you’ll see that it is directly related to the sacraments. The Catholic Church taught, teaches, that Truth comes to us from both scripture and tradition. Luther taught that the Truth comes to us through scripture and not tradition. Thus the term Sola Scriptura is a kind of misnomer and is directly related to the sacraments.

I’ll simply repeat the gist of the last post I offered on this matter…Baptism is not confined to Tradition only. It is revealed signifcantly in Scripture. To focus on baptism in a SS thread by claiming it is relevant due to the fact that the Catholic position on it is solely Tradition is not only inappropriate, it is also a seemingly deliberate diversion away from the heart of the argument against SS, namely that Scripture is incapable of wielding any authority on its own, because it ultimately depends on someone’s interpretation of it…and that interpretation must be infallible and consistenly derived, otherwise there are no foundational legs to support it’s supreme authority. No one, however, claims to possess this infallible, inerrant interpretation in the SS camp. Until someone steps up to the plate and claims it, then I refrain from ever taking the claim of supreme authority of the Bible alone seriously. And even when someone DOES finally claim to be the infallible interpreter, even as they make the claim that it is the Holy Spirit within them making it so, I will simply point out that they are not alone in claiming that infallibility, there are indeed many many others who claim the Spirit guides them inerrantly in their interpretation. Funny thing is, I haven’t seen a common interpretation among any of them that make this claim. Bottom line, SS is a ludicrious and heretical theology. I pray that God will have mercy on Luther. Seriously.

 

[SteveGC]

Really then I should think we should all throw your books in the fire. And by whos authority do you make the statement: “The NT letters themselves don’t SAY anything”

The authority of common sense…

It seems you are having a difficult time comprehending the concept of how words in a book are understood. Let me clarify the position here a bit.

The only time a book (including the Bible) “says” anything, is when what comes after “says” is the word for word, copy and paste, regurgitation of the actual text by itself. As soon as you offer anything more than the text, which is precisely what you are doing every time you quote Scripture here, the words (or book) are no longer “saying” anything. It is YOU who are doing the saying at that point. The only time a written word “says” something other than what is written down, is when the author of that text directly tells you what he meant by it - hence, the necessity of authentic (sent) teachers.

That’s why it is disingenuous to say “either you believe what the book says, or you believe what others say”. What you mean to say is this: “either you believe what I say the book means, or you believe what someone else tells you the book means.” Now THAT’s an honest and fair statement that I can live with! And my response to it would be, “yes indeed, and I have chosen to NOT believe what YOU say it means, and opt for what the apostolic Tradition within The Church that produced that text says it means”.

Any debate about Sola Scriptura, therefore, should be centralized on the topic of which humans possess the infallible, inerrant interpretation of Scripture, given them by the authors themselves. It should not diverge onto a tangential debate about this sacrament or that sacrament - all of which can be found within BOTH Sacred Scripture AND Tradition.

Blessings.

 

[Drawmack]

I’ll simply repeat the gist of the last post I offered on this matter…Baptism is not confined to Tradition only. It is revealed signifcantly in Scripture. To focus on baptism in a SS thread by claiming it is relevant due to the fact that the Catholic position on it is solely Tradition is not only inappropriate, it is also a seemingly deliberate diversion away from the heart of the argument against SS, namely that Scripture is incapable of wielding any authority on its own, because it ultimately depends on someone’s interpretation of it…and that interpretation must be infallible and consistenly derived, otherwise there are no foundational legs to support it’s supreme authority. No one, however, claims to possess this infallible, inerrant interpretation in the SS camp. Until someone steps up to the plate and claims it, then I refrain from ever taking the claim of supreme authority of the Bible alone seriously. And even when someone DOES finally claim to be the infallible interpreter, even as they make the claim that it is the Holy Spirit within them making it so, I will simply point out that they are not alone in claiming that infallibility, there are indeed many many others who claim the Spirit guides them inerrantly in their interpretation. Funny thing is, I haven’t seen a common interpretation among any of them that make this claim. Bottom line, SS is a ludicrious and heretical theology. I pray that God will have mercy on Luther. Seriously.

You are absolutely correct, I didn’t mean to imply that Baptism was unbiblical or even that baptism as a sacrament was unbibilical. I apologize for that.

You are also correct that no one who claims infallible authority agrees – including the pope.

 

[Drawmack]

The authority of common sense…

It seems you are having a difficult time comprehending the concept of how words in a book are understood. Let me clarify the position here a bit.

The only time a book (including the Bible) “says” anything, is when what comes after “says” is the word for word, copy and paste, regurgitation of the actual text by itself. As soon as you offer anything more than the text, which is precisely what you are doing every time you quote Scripture here, the words (or book) are no longer “saying” anything. It is YOU who are doing the saying at that point. The only time a written word “says” something other than what is written down, is when the author of that text directly tells you what he meant by it - hence, the necessity of authentic (sent) teachers.

That’s why it is disingenuous to say “either you believe what the book says, or you believe what others say”. What you mean to say is this: “either you believe what I say the book means, or you believe what someone else tells you the book means.” Now THAT’s an honest and fair statement that I can live with! And my response to it would be, “yes indeed, and I have chosen to NOT believe what YOU say it means, and opt for what the apostolic Tradition within The Church that produced that text says it means”.

Any debate about Sola Scriptura, therefore, should be centralized on the topic of which humans possess the infallible, inerrant interpretation of Scripture, given them by the authors themselves. It should not diverge onto a tangential debate about this sacrament or that sacrament - all of which can be found within BOTH Sacred Scripture AND Tradition.

Blessings.

First you contradict yourself in your premise. Either quoting (i.e. copy and pasting) is allowing the text to speak or it is not. You cannot say that quoting is both allowing the text to speak and not allowing the text to speak. Make up your mind.

Secondly, that last statement is the point of divergence for Sola Scriptura. The entire premise and purpose of Sola Scriptura was that Truth is not handed down through Tradition. To attempt to remove that from the discussion is to hold up a straw man. It is to tell the other person what they believe and then to attack what you have said they believe. If you’re going to refute someone else’s beliefs you would do well to learn what those beliefs are first. You claim that all the sacraments can be found within Sacred Scripture. Okay – where? Show me the exact Biblical quote which shows Jesus, in his own words and actions, performing all of the seven sacraments. They are all there, right. This challenge should be easy then. C’mon do it.

Even Thomas Aquinas admitted that Christ didn’t institute all seven sacraments. Aquinas said that Jesus promised confirmation and then lodged into a rather wordy justification as to why promising and instituting are synonyms. Maybe you are a better theologian than Aquinas.

 

[revert_jen]

Then I’ll bring up that prior to England becoming a Protestant nation Thomas More, as part of his job, martyred over 200 Protestants and was still canonized. Of course, you’ll ask for proof about this one. But, think about it for a minute. What was Thomas More’s job before England became Protestant? Is it really so hard to believe that a nation, which once it was Protestant, martyred Catholics would have martyred Protestants while it was Catholic?

Are you saying that because it seems likely to you that a Lord Chancellor of England would martyr 200 Protestants, there need be no proof that it actually happened?
That can’t be what you are saying. What are you saying?

–Jen

 

[Drawmack]

Are you saying that because it seems likely to you that a Lord Chancellor of England would martyr 200 Protestants, there need be no proof that it actually happened?
That can’t be what you are saying. What are you saying?

–Jen

No, I’m saying not to just rail against the idea. There is proof, there is plenty of proof.

The problem is that I was really trying to point out that discussing any, particular, person’s character is outside the scope of this thread and neither the Protestants nor the Catholics are blameless on that front.

 

[SteveGC]

You are absolutely correct, I didn’t mean to imply that Baptism was unbiblical or even that baptism as a sacrament was unbibilical. I apologize for that.

You are also correct that no one who claims infallible authority agrees – including the pope.

Let’s not over-use the term. I, myself, admit that I am guilty of that here. “Infallibility” is a specific term the Church uses when She is describing the protection from error, given by the Spirit of God, when the governing and teaching authority in Rome is declaring a truth regarding faith and morals from the seat of Peter. This declaration need not be directly related to an interpretation She is making from Sacred Scripture. Infallibility has always existed since the apostolic charism of protection was given at Pentecost, but was publicly declared and officially defined only a relatively short time ago.

When I use infallible to describe the interpretation of Scripture, I mean it in a sense that Rome is protected by the Spirit from error when formulating and officially declaring doctrine regarding faith and morals as those doctrines are understood to be found within the writings of Scripture. The overwhelming majority of those doctrines have been declared during the apostolic age, given to The Church as the sacred deposit of faith.

On these officially doctrinal matters specifically of faith and morals, there is no disagreement within the Church, lest the one in disagreement and attempting to act on that disagreement be anathema. And there is no possibility of anyone ever changing doctrine of faith and morals, as the Spirit will not allow it to be done.

Now, as for Sola Scriptura, insofar as anyone who holds to that supreme authority of Scripture, and makes a public declaration of doctrine regarding faith and morals as taken from the pages of that supreme authority, no one can claim infallibility on those doctrines they’ve formulated. And if they do claim it, it is quickly revealed that there is no universal agreement with the body of believers (the “church”) that those indeed are the inerrant doctrines of the faith. And since we don’t see the claim of infallibility when declaring these doctrinal “truths” from Scripture, we must presume that these alleged doctrines are in error, or simply a matter of personal opinion.

What I’m waiting for is an individual who clings to SS to tell me that their doctrinal interpretations of Scripture are indeed infallible. Until then, I tend to not worry about their “opinions” of what Scripture reveals to them. Oh, perhaps I’ll still engage in showing them their errors, as I am confident in the Church’s Spirit-protected interpretations, but ultimately even that is an exercise in futility, because the crux of the issue does not revolve around a spat over this doctrine or that doctrine, but does revolve around the claim to be 100% correct when declaring doctrinal truths. If you allow for the fact that you are not 100% correct, protected by the Spirit in your doctrinal declarations, then what are you telling us with regard to supreme authority of Scripture? You’re telling us that that supreme authority may be in error…and hence, capable of leading us astray - a very critical, eternal-life altering notion.

 

[SteveGC]

First you contradict yourself in your premise. Either quoting (i.e. copy and pasting) is allowing the text to speak or it is not. You cannot say that quoting is both allowing the text to speak and not allowing the text to speak. Make up your mind.

You might want to carefully reread my post. I never contradicted myself. I never said that quoting the text word-for-word is not allowing the text to speak. It most certainly is allowing it to speak. I’m saying that when you offer something OTHER THAN just the text, you cease to allow it to speak for itself. YOU are now doing the speaking for Scripture…which is the definition of interpretation. In either case, Scripture is never interpreting ITSELF. People do the interpreting. So when there is anything other than just the text, the book doesn’t “say” anything at all. If you reread my post, you’ll see that you probably missed that distinction. Or if it’s still unclear, I’ll say it in another way. To say “you either believe what the NT says” makes no sense. Because to “believe” what it “says”, I have to first interpret what it says. And to interpret what it says, I need to know what the author intended it to “say”. Again, that is why I am attempting to correct the phrase “either believe what it says, or believe what others say”. Both are interpretations…yours vs. ours. I chose ours, because it is from the Church.

Drawmack:

Secondly, that last statement is the point of divergence for Sola Scriptura. The entire premise and purpose of Sola Scriptura was that Truth is not handed down through Tradition. To attempt to remove that from the discussion is to hold up a straw man. It is to tell the other person what they believe and then to attack what you have said they believe. If you’re going to refute someone else’s beliefs you would do well to learn what those beliefs are first. You claim that all the sacraments can be found within Sacred Scripture. Okay – where? Show me the exact Biblical quote which shows Jesus, in his own words and actions, performing all of the seven sacraments. They are all there, right. This challenge should be easy then. C’mon do it.

You confuse me. Didn’t you just get done saying this:

Drawmack:

You are absolutely correct, I didn’t mean to imply that Baptism was unbiblical or even that baptism as a sacrament was unbibilical. I apologize for that.

What in the world are you saying now? Baptism, or any sacrament, is a diversion when discussing Sola Scriptura. Because SS is a question of authority, not a question of doctrinal disputes. That’s why I don’t care whatever comes of these tangential doctrinal disputes…what I care about is a discussion of the claim that you have the authority to inerrantly declare that doctrine to the entire world.

Drawmack:

Even Thomas Aquinas admitted that Christ didn’t institute all seven sacraments. Aquinas said that Jesus promised confirmation and then lodged into a rather wordy justification as to why promising and instituting are synonyms. Maybe you are a better theologian than Aquinas.

I never said that Jesus had to physically institute the sacraments Himself. The Church is an embodiment of Christ Himself, so when the Church institutes a sacrament, it is Jesus instituting the sacrament.

 

[Drawmack]

What in the world are you saying now? Baptism, or any sacrament, is a diversion when discussing Sola Scriptura. Because SS is a question of authority, not a question of doctrinal disputes. That’s why I don’t care whatever comes of these tangential doctrinal disputes…what I care about is a discussion of the claim that you have the authority to inerrantly declare that doctrine to the entire world.

You are mistaken about Sola Scriptura. The question is do we get Truth from Scripture or from Scripture and Tradition. Sola Scriptura says that it is only through Scripture. Thus it does relate to the sacraments

I never said that Jesus had to physically institute the sacraments Himself. The Church is an embodiment of Christ Himself, so when the Church institutes a sacrament, it is Jesus instituting the sacrament.

Oh, I get it now. The Church made of men is Jesus. So, man is Jesus. So, man is God. Thank you but I’ll stick with my belief in an actual God who is greater than man. I know you’ll talk about Jesus founding the Church in response to this, but that’s not what I am talking about here. You has that the Church is Christ Himself and that is not true.

 

[kcmekim]

What about this analogy I used earlier?

My son wanted to play basketball. I tell him, “Son, drink plenty of milk, it has protein and calcium for growing strong bones and making you heathly, that you may be complete, equipped for a basketball career.”
Do you understand me to be telling my son that milk ALONE will make him a good basketball player, or do you understand me to be stating the important and profitability of milk?

Hopefully this help you to see what my understanding of the verse is?

I’m not saying that I don’t see what your understanding of the verse is. I’m saying that you’re purposely misunderstanding the verse.

The chapter doesn’t say that.

The chapter doesn’t have to describe itself in order for us to observe what it is.

Paul didn’t even say he was perfect.

Who wrote the book of Hebrews?

You have steadfastness and are now perfect?

The Bible says that we’ve been perfected.

I do realize that you are talking about Heb 10:14, but do you honestly consider yourself perfect?

Is there some reason I shouldn’t believe Hebrews 10:14?

Paul was not so presumptuous

Hey, genius, Paul was the one who wrote it.

Is Love profitable, necessary for becoming perfect?
Is Faith profitable, necessary for becoming perfect?

Love and faith are outward evidence of perfection, not a means to be perfected.

By your theology I have the right to my interpretation, right?

Yep, but having the right to do something doesn’t make you right in doing it.

I’ve studied the text and the history and your defense of your position does not sway me.
Who are you to tell me that my interpretation is wrong.

A person who sees the error in your interpretation.

In a sense, though, you’re right. You’re Catholic and I’m not so it’s really none of my business how you choose to interpret it.

The Greek word ophelimos (“profitable”) used in verse 16 means “useful” not “sufficient.”

Literally, it means “for the purpose of”

Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.

Nor has anyone claimed that.

If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.

But remember, you’re also operating on a gross misunderstanding of what sola scriptura is.

II’ve already shown you that this can’t mean ‘only’ scripture

Actually, you claimed that it can’t mean only scripture.

 

[SteveGC]

You are mistaken about Sola Scriptura. The question is do we get Truth from Scripture or from Scripture and Tradition. Sola Scriptura says that it is only through Scripture. Thus it does relate to the sacraments

Do we agree that both Catholics and Sola Scripturists claim that the doctrine of baptism can be argued from Scripture? If yes, I agree.

Are you saying that because Catholics also use Sacred Tradition to develop the doctrine, that therefore the debate over baptism from Scripture is relevant to the validity of Sola Scriptura? If yes, I disagree.

What do you attempt to prove about SS from a debate over baptism? Are you suggesting that when we hear your interpretation of baptism from Scripture alone, that we will then see that SS is correct? Do you not see that how you explain baptism from Scripture is irrelevant to the topic of SS? Do you not see that Catholics will never accept your view of baptism unless it precisely matches what the Church teaches (from both Scripture and Tradition)? Do you now see that it is pointless to discuss anything but the problem with the issue of authority when discussing Sola Scriptura?

It doesn’t matter which doctrine, which sacrament, which teaching you wish to debate from Scripture, Drawmack…when the dust settles from all that debating, the only thing remaining is the question over whose interpretation we are going to accept…the individual who is outside of the apostolic Tradition of the Church Christ founded, or the Church Herself. Catholics will always side with the Church. And the point is…you should too…everyone should. Because that’s where the truth resides.

Drawmack:

Oh, I get it now. The Church made of men is Jesus. So, man is Jesus. So, man is God. Thank you but I’ll stick with my belief in an actual God who is greater than man. I know you’ll talk about Jesus founding the Church in response to this, but that’s not what I am talking about here. You has that the Church is Christ Himself and that is not true.

No…you clearly don’t “get it now”. Christ is the Head of the Church, and the Church is the embodiment (Body) of Christ. He and the Church are inseparably joined. With the protection of the Spirit, the movements of the Church directly reflect the movements of Christ Himself. From the Catechism:

779 The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ. She is one, yet formed of two components, human and divine.

IV. THE CHURCH IS APOSTOLIC

857 The Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles, in three ways:

• she was and remains built on "the foundation of the Apostles,"the witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself;
• with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching, the “good deposit,” the salutary words she has heard from the apostles;
• she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ’s return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, “assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church’s supreme pastor” * (CCC)*

 

[JRKH]

Bible practitioners use it as a base line from which to measure that what is taught, is in compliance or agreement with the NT writers. There are 3 points I would like to make that will address your reference to Mathew 18 15-18. Ether one of use could produce more than 3 witnesses to attest to the proper teaching or the true church.

Actually I’m not fully sure what you are saying above but your reference to 2 witnesses indicates that you are not getting past point number two in the passage (…bring witnesses that each point may be confirmed…)

My 3 points of interest.

1. Mathew 16-18 Now where else in scripture does it indicate that anyone other than Jesus is the Rock or foundation of the church. Nether does it indicate an intercessor.

1. Since when is it necessary for God to mention something more than once for it to be valid?

1. Receiving the HS is not the result of being baptized in water. Acts 10-44 Mark 1-8
2. None of the Marion doctrine is found in scripture, Mary’s freedom from sin, conceived without original sin or its stain, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.

1. I’ll ad a forth that was mentioned here, the A and B brand of HS that is given to the believers and the Spirit that was given to the Apostles. It is not a different Spirit the 12 were appointed to testify and establish the new covenant, this mission / ministry was never to be pass on to others. They and they alone carried out the Apostolic mission. These men were completely empowered to present a flawless representation of Jesus to the world threw the power of the HS. That is why the best example Christians today have is the original message contained in the NT letters, not the implied passing of this office threw the ages. Read Mark CH7 and see what Jesus said to the Pharisees and scribes about monkeying around with the original message given to Mosses. In Rev we see the new Jerusalem with a wall surrounding it, the foundation contains the names of the 12 Apostles not Peter and the list of Popes. The Church could be indicated as the New Jerusalem the wall with the foundation containing the 12 Apostles will never fail. The gates of hell will never penetrate this wall. The 12 and the 12 alone were empowered by the same Holy Spirit we all receive, their mission was of the highest importance laying the foundation of the wall, it contains no other names but their own. The gates contained the names of the 12 tribes.

I will not debate any of these points simply because they are not gemain to either the topic of the O.P. or to my reference to Mt 18:15-18

So who is the church? You will quote Mathew 16 and reference all the writers except the 12 to support your wall.

Once again I must admit not understanding you here. Perhaps I am just dense tonight.
My point in raising this issue at all in the thread is merely to illustrate that Christ realized the need for a Visible, Authoritative Body to act in His name for the purpose of maintaining doctrinal unity. Christ prayed for this unity. Paul exhorted the Churches he wrote to to maintain this unity.
I don’t say that Luther acted out of malice, and I recognize that you and everyone else here is sincere in your efforts to promote the Gospel. Yet we are left with differences that are not solvable by ourselves. That is why Christ instituted a Church (Body of believers) that Had Authority (Bishops to teach) who could meet and resolve these issues.
For further reading on this, there was a thread awhile back that addressed the very issue of how Non-catholics, "Tell it To The Church". It was a wonderful and very Christian exchange of ideas. You might find it interesting reading.
Feel free to add to it if so moved.

Peace
James