Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[jlhargus]

[Jms5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.]

Ah, my favorite misunderstood Scripture. This is a Scripture on healing not absolution. Paul is telling us to confess our sins to each other, he does not specify priest nor does he touch on this confession leading to absolution. There is even a part in verse 14 where he does direct you to the elders of the church, but not for absolution or forgiveness but for healing. The rest of the Scripture is addressed to believers, the laypeople. It says confess your faults one to another, not confess your sins to the elders of the church, and it calls for believers to pray for one another so that they can be healed. There is not mention of absolution.

JL: That’s why I had it listed under anointing of the sick which also forgives sin in verse 15. Actually in the early Church confession was not done privately but before the congregation and the elder absolved.

[Jms5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.]

The sacrament of anointing forgives sin even if the person is not able to confess to the elder. Confess one to another is all in the same context of the elder’s anointing of the sick. Individuals can forgive another person but they cannot remit or retain sin before God, only God can do that and he does so through the sacrament of reconciliation. God also remits sin with the anointing of the sick and baptism.

 

[jlhargus]

Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession remits sin;

[Jn20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.]

This charge is not just the the disciples who were gathered but for all who believe, because even in one of the Scripture you quote, 2 Corinthians 2:10 Paul is saying the exact same thing, only you left out the part where his message was not to the elders or priests of the church but to everyone on how to deal with a believer who has done wrong

Here is that verse in context: 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 5 But if anyone has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but all of you to some extent—not to be too severe. 6 This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. 8 Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him. 9 For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. 10 Now whom you forgive anything, I also forgive. For if indeed I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven that one for your sakes in the presence of Christ, 11 lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices.

JL: : Not so, when was the last time you remitted or retained a person’s sins. In Jn20:21-23 Christ breathed the Holy Spirit on the apostles to remit or retain sin. They must know or hear what the sin is before they can remit or retain.

If someone stills a SS check from an elderly person and they have to choose between eating and paying the heat bill. The elderly person can forgive the thief. Yet the thief’s sin has not been remitted before God unless he repents and confesses. We cannot remit or absolve the person who sinned against us only God can do that, He does so through the sacraments of reconciliation, Baptism and Anointing of the Sick.

In 2Cor2:5-11 it is Paul only who forgives or remits sin in Christ presents.

2 Corinthians 2:10 - Bible Gateway View 2Cor2:5-11 in 59 English versions of Bible.

 

[jlhargus]

This Scripture has nothing to do with baptism, this is dealing with husbands and wives. Paul is talking about the husband covering his wife by washing with the Word. Here is the verse in context:

Ephesians 5:25-28 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might [g]sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.

JL: How often do you wash your wife in water and then preach the word to her? Your own post in verse 27 tells you Christ is speaking of the Church.

27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
[/quote]

 

[Chris4]

Medwigel seems to separate the whole process in verse 14 and 15 apparently to serve his argument. He should also clarify if he can why Jesus did both absolution and healing in one instance. For instance one would go for healing but instead Jesus would simply absolve.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . .

In other words, you place an authority above God.

No Sean77.

I believe God when He says He will work through them in certain circumstances, despite their personal flaws.

That is WHY Jesus can say . . . WHATEVER you bind on earth, will be bound in Heaven. And WHATEVER you loose on earth, will be loosed in Heaven.

Jesus is not going to “loose” error.

If Jesus says this, He has GOT TO protect this fallible recipient.

It is this PROTECTION of Jesus, where we find that infallibility derived from.

There is one Church that makes this claim
(actually the Eastern Orthodoxies do too). The Catholic Church.

And that one Church tells us, that this power is not indescriminate.

That Church tells us this power is only under certain circumstances.

You are going to say . . .“Well. The Church that can bind and loose like this is NOT, the Catholic Church!”

And to that I would just say . . .OK (for now).

Just prescind from the Catholic Church for a moment.

Then let it seek deeply into your mind and heart that this VERSE is still true.

THEN you have to ask yourself . . .

. . . WHERE is this charism from God found today? Who has this power of God working THROUGH them?

That would be a good start Sean77.

 

[Sean77]

Pretend there are 10,000 Protestants in a room all admitting they have no authority and all having their Bibles in hand.

Shaking my head. You have not heard a word said in the 787 postings here. We do not say there is no authority. We say that man is subject to the authority of God, and his revelation has been communicated through the scriptures.

There is one Catholic Pope there who also has a Bible, at least claims he has oral Tradition, and at least claims if necessary and under certain circumstances, he can with the protection of Christ, CLARIFY an interpretation in dispute (Magisterium or “teaching office”).

Our issue is not with your use of a hierarchical church polity. I am actually for such a polity. Our issue is with you investing infallibility in the Pope, even where the Pope may teach doctrine and practice that is opposed to God’s word. I mourn over the fact that the Church has fractured. However, the fracturing of the church is as much the fault of the Pope as it is the bodies that broke communion with the church over her doctrine and practice in the middle ages. Unfortunately, there will be no unification with the Roman church until the authority of the church submits to the word of God in matters of faith and doctrine. Bu will continue to dialogue and pray that this will come to pass.

 

[Sean77]

But you are changing my premise from HOW I know something to God’s nature.

No, I am rejecting your premise that God’s nature and characteristics must be vested in imperfect man in order for me to know something.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . . .

Shaking my head. You have not heard a word said in the 787 postings here. We do not say there is no authority. We say that man is subject to the authority of God, and his revelation has been communicated through the scriptures.

Shaking my head. You have not heard a word said in the 787 postings here.

I asked what about 10,000 Protestants who SAY they are ALL subject to “to the authority of God” yet come to
10,000 DIFFERENT “FULLNESSES of ‘truth’’”?

 

[Cathoholic]

Sean77 . . .

No, I am rejecting your premise that God’s nature and characteristics must be vested in imperfect man in order for me to know something.

.

This is just another DENIAL that God can work IN and THROUGH imperfect men.

Yet you seem to have one exception and ASSERT just that for . . . YOURSELF.

You are acting as your own Pope Sean77.

Such ideas as DENYING that Jesus can and DOES work IN and THROUGH "imperfect men"
are just outwardly “pseudopious” forms of trimming down Jesus.

 

[jlhargus]

jlhargus:

I don’t know about SDA but I would bet when you were baptized SDA you said nothing. If you did what did you say calling on the Lord?

Just to clarify, SDA meaning Seventh Day Adventist?

I will respect that and will not use initials again.

 

[medwigel]

[Jms5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.]

The sacrament of anointing forgives sin even if the person is not able to confess to the elder. Confess one to another is all in the same context of the elder’s anointing of the sick. Individuals can forgive another person but they cannot remit or retain sin before God, only God can do that and he does so through the sacrament of reconciliation. God also remits sin with the anointing of the sick and baptism.

This is all made up.
The Scripture says NOTHING about sins being absolved by a priest or elder in this or any other Scripture.
Verse 16 clearly says to tell your sins to one another not to priest or elders.
Verse 14-15 is speaking to healing of the sick, so unless you are saying that everyone who goes to confession is sick, this does not a sacrament of reconciliation make.

 

[medwigel]

JL: : Not so, when was the last time you remitted or retained a person’s sins.

Jesus commands us all to forgive each other. There are tons of people who choose not to forgive and are trapped in that person’s sin because they will not forgive.

Matthew 18:21-22
21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[g]

Romans 2:4
4 Or do you have no regard for the wealth of His kindness and tolerance and patience [in withholding His wrath]? Are you [actually] unaware or ignorant [of the fact] that God’s kindness leads you to repentance [that is, to change your inner self, your old way of thinking—seek His purpose for your life]?

It is the knowledge of God that causes a person to repent, not going to another human being to facilitate what only God can do. God doesn’t need man’s help to impart forgiveness, all we need is God’s goodness, tolerance and patience to repent!

In Jn20:21-23 Christ breathed the Holy Spirit on the apostles to remit or retain sin. They must know or hear what the sin is before they can remit or retain.

So when you were saved you didn’t receive the Holy Spirit? Because the same Holy Spirt the Apostles received, we also received, and the Holy Spirit is not a respecter of person, whatever He did for the Apostles He will also do for ALL who believe. There is no favoritism with God.

 

[medwigel]

Medwigel seems to separate the whole process in verse 14 and 15 apparently to serve his argument. He should also clarify if he can why Jesus did both absolution and healing in one instance. For instance one would go for healing but instead Jesus would simply absolve.

Your statement is confusing
Verses 14 & 15 is talking about healing the sick, and even in this directive to those seeking healing, James did not say “all the sick need to come and confess their sins so that they may be healed”. No, James just says that if you are sick you should come to the elders of the church and have them PRAY for you and ANOINT you. There is no mention of confession of sin involved in this directive for their healing!

 

[medwigel]

Ephesians 5:25-28 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might [g]sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.

JL: How often do you wash your wife in water and then preach the word to her? Your own post in verse 27 tells you Christ is speaking of the Church.
[/quote]

You did not pay attention to the words, it says “washing of water by the word”, no “washing in water then preaching the word”.
You wash your wife by the word by being the spiritual head of your household just as Jesus is the head of the church, and you speak the word of God to her when dealing with all situations as the spiritual head of the family just as Christ gives His word to the church since He is the spiritual head of the church.
This is what we would call an ANALOGY: Christ is the husband and the church is the wife. The mention of “washing” is not referencing baptism.

 

[Chris4]

Your statement is confusing
Verses 14 & 15 is talking about healing the sick, and even in this directive to those seeking healing, James did not say “all the sick need to come and confess their sins so that they may be healed”. No, James just says that if you are sick you should come to the elders of the church and have them PRAY for you and ANOINT you. There is no mention of confession of sin involved in this directive for their healing!

No sir, there is nothing confusing. The Holy Spirit is talking of sickness healing and deliverance in verse 15 with a condition introduced by " and if he has…" Verse 16 has been built up from the preceding verses and starts with an injunction.

 

[guanophore]

Wow, that escalated quickly. Because I disagree with you when you say that Peter’s actions did not have a teaching effect

I agree with you. All of our actions represent He who saved us, so a poor example is a bad reflection. Our actions, especially those of leaders, can function to lead others astray. But a “teaching effect” is not the same as an infallible proclamation. His behavior, as St. Paul pointed out, is not the teaching of the Church. It is an example of how an impeccable person can still teach infallible doctrine.

Except you didn’t take it to its logical conclusion. You skipped straight over the logical conclusion that those who hold teaching offices within the church, sometimes do things that are not inspired by the Holy Spirit,

I don’t think any Catholic could logically refute this. The examples of Peter’s behavior make it clear that the gift of infallibility does NOT equate to impeccability. In point of fact, this is exactly WHY the Church needs the gift, to prevent fallible men from falling into error.

You already received my answer. My answer is that your question was absurd.

What is absurd about it? You have been given several examples of Peter acting infallibly, yet being possessed of peccability. I think the question, and the examples, have been well presented. Are you going to discount all of them, because they disrupt your pre-conceived notions?

I have addressed the doctrines you are attempting to defend.

You have not addressed this point - that a person who has teaching authority in the Church can act in opposition to what they have taught, and this hypocrisy does not invalidate the Truth of the Word of God.

4But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel,

Behavior should be consistent with what is taught in the Gospel. It was Peter’s own infallible declaration from which his actions departed. This does not nullify the infallibility of his proclamation.

As you can see here Peter’s practice did in fact constitute a teaching which was an aberration from the gospel

No, he was not teaching - he was misbehaving in the light of his own previous teaching.

 

[guanophore]

you keep trying to equate Peter with the Holy Spirit.

To an extent, all believers who live and move and have their being in the Holy Spirit should reflect the fruit of the Spirit. But “equate” may not be the best description. When the HS works through men to produce infallible results, that does not make them “divine”. It makes the product divine. When the HS moved men to write scripture, they did not become divine. The product, Scripture, is inspired and inerrant.

Peter like us was a sinful man, subject to error and correction

This is a Catholic teaching. It is also why we need the gift of infallibility.

The Church also is not the Holy Spirit. It is supposed to submit to the Holy Spirit, but can also sin as well.

I think this notion comes from a deficient view of the Church that surfaced after the Reformation. There is a common misunderstanding nowadays that the Church is “the body of believers on earth”. This deficient idea of Church of course will result in deficient conclusions, such that the “church can sin”. The Church cannot sin because she is the Holy Bride of Christ. He is her Head, and the HS is her soul. These divine elements keep the Church holy and pure. Believers, to the extent that they are in unity with the Head and the Soul of the Church can benefit from this purity. However, there are many members of the Church who are not in unity, for whatever reason and fall into sin.

The means by which the Church is rebuked and corrected is through the word of God.

Members of the Church are rebuked, but not the Holy Bride of Christ. She is washed with water and word, and is pure. But yes, we agree that members of the Church are corrected through the Word of God. We just don’t limit that Word to the Scripture.

The objective record of that word is the scriptures.

It is limited to that by Sola Scriptura, of course. But the Sacred Traditions of the Apostles are also an objective source for us, the prophetic gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the teaching authority appointed by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

when you are discussing the ultimate authority you cannot then appeal to a greater authority.

This is not the case. The Church was created by the ultimate authority, Who gave that authority to the Church.

To answer your question, my conclusion is that Peter is not infallible and I do not make the category error of assuming Peter is on the same level of authority as God.

You have moved the bar again, Sean77, and are still avoiding the question. It was stipulated at the beginning that Peter is not infallible. You are refusing to accept the premise that infallibility does not equate to impeccability.

The CC does not teach that Peter is divine, or on the same level of the HS. The Church teaches that God gave Peter and the Apostles His level of authority. If you reject this, you reject what is clearly written in the Scripture.

Our issue is with you investing infallibility in the Pope, even where the Pope may teach doctrine and practice that is opposed to God’s word.

This is a strawman, Sean77. The Church did not invest Peter with infallibility, Jesus did. There are many levels of Catholic teaching, and it is impossible for a Pope to infallibly teach doctrine or practice that is opposed to God’s word. God would take the life of the Pope before allowing such a thing. Otherwise, His promise to lead the Church into all Truth would be voided, and God cannot deny Himself.

 

[guanophore]

This is all made up.
The Scripture says NOTHING about sins being absolved by a priest or elder in this or any other Scripture.

Scripture does not say this to YOU because you are reading it through anti-Catholic lenses. It says that to us because we have received what the Apostles believed and taught.

Verse 16 clearly says to tell your sins to one another not to priest or elders.
Verse 14-15 is speaking to healing of the sick, so unless you are saying that everyone who goes to confession is sick, this does not a sacrament of reconciliation make.

It is clear that you are not understanding what is written here in the light of other Scriptures that reference the same topics.

It is the knowledge of God that causes a person to repent, not going to another human being to facilitate what only God can do.

These two are not mutually exclusive. Of course it is the HS that moves persons to repentance. Then they go to the ones that God has appointed to absolve the sins.

God doesn’t need man’s help to impart forgiveness, all we need is God’s goodness, tolerance and patience to repent!

Of course He does not! God CHOSE to use men to help impart His forgiveness. He knows that guilt and shame can hinder our spiritual growth, so He created the structure that people could hear His voice telling them they are forgiven. This makes it objective, not subjective.

Anyway, people go to confession because they have already repented.

whatever He did for the Apostles He will also do for ALL who believe. There is no favoritism with God.

Yes, we all receive the Holy Spirit, but not everyone is called and gifted the same. God invested certain tasks and gifts, and we are all to use them, and participate in them as He has ordered the Church. He invested the Apostles with the authority to forgive sins in His name, and they passed this to their successors, the Bishops.

 

[guanophore]

James just says that if you are sick you should come to the elders of the church and have them PRAY for you and ANOINT you.

Actually, he says that the elders should be called to the sick man. This is because the sick person may not be able to get out of bed, and may not even be conscious. Persons who are conscious can make a confession. Those who are not may be forgiven in the Sacrament.

There is no mention of confession of sin involved in this directive for their healing!

Exactly! There are two separate ideas here. One is those who are able to do so making a confession, the other is anointing for those who are not able to confess.

You have yet to understand this scripture in the light of other scriptures about confession and forgiveness of sins.

You did not pay attention to the words, it says “washing of water by the word”, no “washing in water then preaching the word”.

Ephesians 5:26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word…

I think it is you that is not reading the words, medwigel.

καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος = her, having cleansed her by the washing of water

There is no washing of water that can cleanse the Church other than baptism.

But I agree with you about the analogy.

No sir, there is nothing confusing.

On the contrary, I think medwigel is quite confused. He has been led astray from the Truth.