Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Albion]

This thread begs the question in point 4, for another source of incontrovertible truth.

I agree that points 4 and 5 seem to be just about the same thing.

Catholics have argued in this thread that apostolic succession from Peter provides this.

Papal Infallibility gives us a second means of knowing God's truth, you mean? I don't quite agree with that because even with the adoption of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, the Pope has to cite something as the basis for any decree...and that's almost always going to be mainly a resort to some alleged "tradition." So, it's the "tradition" itself that becomes the supposed second (to Scripture) stream of divine revelation, and the Pope is simply making it official.

My response is to refute this; stating that scripture does not show Peter being inerrant or having the authority to pass his authority on to another.

OK, but it seems off-topic to me. And, in addition, you're talking not about Apostolic Succession itself but the RCC's particular twist on that subject. My own church has bishops in Apostolic Succession, for instance, and we don't think for a moment that they can invent any doctrines and certainly not because of any theory of infallibility.

As to other uses of "apostolic succession" and learning what it is all about, I really don't care. I am not Catholic and it is irrelevant to this thread. The only reason it is being discussed here is because a Catholic brought it up with certain implications and application.

I understand. This is my fault for not more carefully reconstructing the whole drift of the thread.

If you think that use of "apostolic succession" in error than you can argue with him about it.

Hmmm. That might be appropriate, but when you misstate the matter in your rebuttal to him, it's not totally a matter of what he said.

Don't fault me for refuting another's use of it. Further you have not offered a rebuttal to the scripture and points I used to refute this.

You see, you're still off course. I don't fault you for saying Papal Infallibilty is wrong, but when you mischaracterize Apostolic Succession en route to doing that, I feel that it's appropriate to set the record straight.

I will again quote my point. If you can argue this point, then feel free to, hopefully with scripture.

Having looked at that line you quoted for me, I don't even know what the point is that you're making. I do know what Apostolic Succession is, however, and it isn't something that is the special possession of the Roman Catholic Church, nor is it important simply because the RCC claims infallibility and/or to be the "one true church." What I'm saying--to put it another way--is that these two ideas need to be kept separate.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thank you for being the second witness to testify in regards to how the body of Christ has not been treated equally, but that only a privileged few are able to dictate to the masses what they should or should not believe.

I for one don't need to be forced to believe in purgatory and my defence is that it is unconstitutional, when citing in defence the first witness, the Holy Bible. If purgatory was such an important doctrine concerning where people go to be purged by fires, then at the very least Jesus would have taught it to his disciples and that at least one disciple would have recorded Jesus teaching this doctrine.

I find no merit what so ever in the doctrine of purgatory and in this regard we must hold onto Sola Scripture as the authoritative document, which is the foundation Christian constitution, that constitutes our original and uncorrupted faith.

It is disheartening to see why so many want to do away with our constitutional rights and to hand power back to a few selected men who think that they have the right to judge us in matters concerning our sanctification and our salvation. In this regard the church is the body of Christ and it is not a relgious enterprise having a hierarchy that dictates what we should and should not believe in order to be saved. For it is written in both old and New Testament that no man will tell his neighbour to believe in the Lord for all will believe in the Lord from the greatest to the least.

We are now at the crossroads where this pharisaical like enterprise is on its last breath and the power is being handed over to the people, the body of Christ, that will be directed by our one and only Patrairch/Pope Christ Jesus. We look forward to the day that our brothers and sisters can be free from a religion of dictates and come and embrace their God given constitution and to enjoy their rights to worship God according to the gifts that God has poured out from Pentecost and onwards. This day will be heralded by a call of distress amongst all and throughout the world, because those privileged few are not yet ready to throw in the towel and to quite from their unauthorised positions.

Where does it say that it is legitimate to have an earthly Chief Priest like a Patrairch or a Pope who can intercede in the Holy of Holies. Is the temple on earth the Holy of Holies, or is it Christ Jesus in us, who is the temple and he is interceding on our behaves as our one and only Patrairch/Pope in heaven and on earth, for all power and authority is given into his hands.

I remain optimistic that this is the last hour and the Pope according to Malachy's prophesy is the last Pope and all patriarchs that hold these position will eventually realise their errors of illegitimacy of ever proclaiming to hold a Chief Priest office in place of the Chief Priest office of Melchizedek, who is Christ Jesus. Notice that when they swear each other into these offices, they say that we are after the order of Melchizedek and this is to say that they have been sworn in by an oath, by God the Father and that their office is a non transferable office that is indestructible life, which is false, because these earthly chief priests do die and are replaced by another. When Jesus Christ ascended up on high he would replace the old patriarchal/pope chief priest office with his office, when he sat in the patriarchal/pope office and has to date never left it, because he has indestructible life and it was only him that God the Father had sworn in with an oath......

So, as an American, do you get to pick and choose what laws of the country you want to follow? No? So, as a Christian, how can you pick and choose which of Christ's teachings you get to follow?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Really it has always been routed out?

Paul says that the apostasy is in the church.....

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. (Acts 20:29:31)

Right. And then they are pushed out, when they are found out. Always and everywhere.

what does servant of servants of God mean?

First who dictates who is a servant?

One who is called to serve in a particular way is a servant. A waitress might be called a server, now, but she is a servant to the dinner crowd, is she not? A priest, also, is a servant, as a pastor is to his flock. A bishop is a servant to the priests of his diocese, as well as to the flock. A pope is a servant to the bishops as well as to the priests, as well as to the flock.

According to them they may only define their fellow bishops as servants of God and exclude the least of the body of Christ.

That's your own interpretation.

Show me one instant how a pope or a Patrairch is not a judge, then the servant of the servants would hold true, but name on its own is meaningless unless it has no power attached to the office that would counteract the name servant. Jesus said the greatest amongst you is your servant. He didn't say the greatest amongst you is both judge and servant. There appears to be an unreconcilable contradiction in that very title.

We call an elected official a servant, don't we? Whether they actually serve the people or themselves is another story, as is true of those who serve the flock. St. Augustine wrote a treatise on Pastorship, which describes, really, how priests and bishops are to serve their flocks.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If you know that your church teaches that the Church is the collection of baptized believers, then why do you repeatedly misquote scripture with your interpretation that scripture is referencing your religious institution when it says the church?

I don't. I believe Christ when he instituted one Church, which by definition would be catholic, universal. If Christ is the King of the Universe, then His Church is the Church of the universe, or Catholic.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Understand this is a forum where a diversity of points are argued. If you wish to just stand on a soap box and present your interpretation without listening to another interpretation than you should really just stand at a pulpit and preach. If you desire to post in my thread, then you need to be able to argue and defend your statements.

I guess that your response means you don't have arguments against my points against apostolic succession.

Actually, it's you imposing your interpretation on us, and therefore, it's you on the soapbox. My interpretation comes with authority, given by Christ.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Acts 1:24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.​

Read scripture and see that the Holy Spirit did not guide the apostles to choose Matthias. They cast lots, which put the decision in God's hand. This further refutes the ability of the apostles to choose successors.

The Holy Spirit is God, is He not? First they prayed to the Holy Spirit, then chose lots, which was the Holy Spirit's answer.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not another vain attempt to invoke 1Cor. 3 as supporting purgatory, which it nor any other texts teach. This has already been refuted on this thread, and to save me more typing see here and here and here and interact with these.

A vain unreasonable retort, but fitting since what is linked clearly refuted your absurd attempt to make 1Cor. 3 describe purgatory.

A fallacious argument against the fact that they did, for souls will not only die to protect what they see as a threat from foreigners to what they love, but will also incorporate things from foreigners which they see helping their faith.

Those who burned incense to an instrument of Divine deliverance, and turned high places in the OT into places of Jehovistic worship (cf. 2Kg. 12:3; 18:4) were likely well-meaning souls, as were Catholics who adopted the pagan practice of bowing/kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods).

You can search the Hebrew Scriptures and NT from beginning and you will never find prayer being made to any created beings in Heaven, or for the dead, except by pagans.

Yes, i believe that you don't care, as evidenced, what even Catholic scholars say that do not support the fantasy you support.

Catholic scholars have points of view, at times, that do not coincide with what the Church teaches. In fact, when Paul Vi proffered his encyclical against contraception, the entire bishops conference of Canada denied that it was a valid teaching. I choose to believe those who are in communion with the Pope when they teach.
Purgatory, the state of purification prior to entry into heaven, is just what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 3.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So much for the Catholics never changing the one true doctrine traced to Peter.

Well, this has not been ratified, while as with Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and V2 teaching, some Catholics will imagine there is no contradiction, while others will dissent, as they can, under the umbrella of diversity that is Catholicism, with parties that see no substantive differences, and others who go so far as to say:

Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, she knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.” — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997

Vladimir Lossky, a noted modern Eastern Orthodox theologian, argues the difference in East and West is due to the Roman Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy (and its outgrowth, scholasticism) rather than the mystical, actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmas of Roman Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky argues that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have become "different men".[18] Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John Romanides[19] and Metropolitan Hierotheos[20][21] say the same. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox__Roman_Catholic_theological_differences

Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation. Finally, and very crucially, they embrace radically different views of the final destiny of man. In this respect they both employ the concept of "deification", but possess very different understandings of what this term signifies. - http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Acts 1:24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.​

Read scripture and see that the Holy Spirit did not guide the apostles to choose Matthias. They cast lots, which put the decision in God's hand. This further refutes the ability of the apostles to choose successors.

The Holy Spirit is God, is He not? First they prayed to the Holy Spirit, then chose lots, which was the Holy Spirit's answer.

The issue is not, the Holy Spirit being God. It is the difference between one being inspired by the Holy Spirit vs a direct choosing by God. Now certainly Peter was inspired by the Holy Spirit in his service of God. It could have went down that Peter just prayed for God to direct his choice of a replacement for Judas. If Peter would then have chosen Matthias, then we would all agree it was guided/inspired by the Holy Spirit.

But, scripture gives a different description of how Judas was replaced. It says they cast lots and Proverbs 16:33 says the Lord is then the one deciding; not the Holy Spirit inspiring man. The distinction being that it was directly God that chose the 13 apostles and not man inspired to do it. There is no doubt the 13 received their authority from God.

Contrast this to the many other apostles that came later. If Peter laid hands on a hundred and charged many of them to be apostles, how would we know when Peter might have done the special one where he then transferred the authority that Jesus gave him directly to a successor of his choosing? It is a matter of testimony and authority. Jesus set apart those he called saying they will sit on 12 thrones. This is reinforced with the OT prophets being called directly by God and tasked with speaking for him.

1 Kings 19:9 And the word of the Lord came to him: “What are you doing here, Elijah?” 16 Also, anoint Jehu son of Nimshi king over Israel, and anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah to succeed you as prophet.​

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I don't. I believe Christ when he instituted one Church, which by definition would be catholic, universal. If Christ is the King of the Universe, then His Church is the Church of the universe, or Catholic.

And now you are just playing with words and deceiving along the way. The Church, one Church, catholic/universal church, His Church or just Catholic; how many ways can you use these words and then repeatedly argue and defend the positions of your Roman Catholic church with what applies to the universal church? You have argued that your church has authority from Peter. This is not a position held by all in the universal church, aka catholic.

So please stop using Catholic when you are really arguing for something in the RCC.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Actually, it's you imposing your interpretation on us, and therefore, it's you on the soapbox. My interpretation comes with authority, given by Christ.

Whatever authority you think you have, it means nothing here. It impresses none for you to say you have authority given by Christ. I could say the same. What convinces here on CF is the argument you make and how well you use scripture to support your position. Here in GT, scripture is the ultimate authority. You may not agree with my argument and the scripture I might use to support such. That is fine, but if you think it wrong then you should be able to express how it is wrong and support your position with further scripture. For you to respond to a lengthy post with just "I don't need you to interpret Scripture for me" is a privileged dismissal. This forum would be completely lacking in edification if every exchange was, "I am right, you are wrong" without support for such a claim.

Note, that one who speaks on a soapbox is one who does not engage in a discussion of the issue; that means an exchange/back and forth of ideas is absent. I have never dismissed a counter argument to one of my positions with just "my interpretations comes with authority given by Christ". It is akin to I am right because I say I am right. To me, it is a sign of failure in arguing ones position.

Now I have seen you argue some statements back and forth and I commend you for those, but this case was different.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Purgatory, the state of purification prior to entry into heaven, is just what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 3.

Wrong, as showed again and again. A simple reading of it without overruling preconceived ideas clearly teaches that the workmanship of believers which they built the church with it being burned up, consistent with the consumption of the tares which grew up with the wheat, and which results in the loss of rewards, not gain, with believers being saved despite of this loss, not because of it.

Thus no one is being purified in the judgment seat of Christ in order to enter Heaven (and they already are with the Lord), but instead the issue in 1Co. 3 is that of particular rewards, and despite your vain attempt to make the fire of 1Cor 3 into the purgative fire of Purgatory, it remains that this judgment awaits the second coming of Christ, as clearly shown.

 

[Berean777]

@Root of Jesse said....

There has been apostasy in the Church from the beginning, and it has always been rooted out of the Church.

I replied......

Really it has always been routed out?

Paul says that the apostasy is in the church.....

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. (Acts 20:29:31)

Right. And then they are pushed out, when they are found out. Always and everywhere.

Interesting.........

Pope John Paul apologised on behalf of the RCC to the atrocities that were committed in the name of religion by countless consecutive popes and bishops who across a period of over a 1000 years were on a blood rampage.

Yes, I see your point, the institution took a millennium to step in and to push out those wicked popes who took part in acts of terror. I see, the institution just needed a decade, two or three maybe, to hold those pedophiles amongst the clergy accountable for their actions.

Not to mention that the legacy by how the institution would take care of those wicked popes by a slide of hand, that is they mysteriously were smothered by a pillow in their sleep, poisoned by an unknown, thrown into the sea by an unknown and many who were said to be martyred were later rescinded that status.......

If a religious institution is a white bed sheet and on the bed sheet there is one, two, three or maybe more blood stains on it, then it is safe to say that a murder has been committed on the bed sheet. Off course the bed sheet is infallible, as some say the bed sheet had nothing to do with it. However the bed sheet was the scene of the crime and a crime investigation will lead to those assigned, who are supposed to push out this apostasy by doing what they are told, right?

Hmmmmm.........

 

[Root of Jesse]

The issue is not, the Holy Spirit being God. It is the difference between one being inspired by the Holy Spirit vs a direct choosing by God. Now certainly Peter was inspired by the Holy Spirit in his service of God. It could have went down that Peter just prayed for God to direct his choice of a replacement for Judas. If Peter would then have chosen Matthias, then we would all agree it was guided/inspired by the Holy Spirit.

But, scripture gives a different description of how Judas was replaced. It says they cast lots and Proverbs 16:33 says the Lord is then the one deciding; not the Holy Spirit inspiring man. The distinction being that it was directly God that chose the 13 apostles and not man inspired to do it. There is no doubt the 13 received their authority from God.

Contrast this to the many other apostles that came later. If Peter laid hands on a hundred and charged many of them to be apostles, how would we know when Peter might have done the special one where he then transferred the authority that Jesus gave him directly to a successor of his choosing? It is a matter of testimony and authority. Jesus set apart those he called saying they will sit on 12 thrones. This is reinforced with the OT prophets being called directly by God and tasked with speaking for him.

1 Kings 19:9 And the word of the Lord came to him: “What are you doing here, Elijah?” 16 Also, anoint Jehu son of Nimshi king over Israel, and anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah to succeed you as prophet.​

Casting lots is, as is using umim and thurim in the OT, relying on God to give us his decision. Therefore, Mattias was chosen by God to replace Judas.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And now you are just playing with words and deceiving along the way. The Church, one Church, catholic/universal church, His Church or just Catholic; how many ways can you use these words and then repeatedly argue and defend the positions of your Roman Catholic church with what applies to the universal church? You have argued that your church has authority from Peter. This is not a position held by all in the universal church, aka catholic.

So please stop using Catholic when you are really arguing for something in the RCC.

Please stop attaching your meaning to what I am writing. There is only one Catholic Church, the one Christ founded, to which Paul referred (One faith, one baptism, one Lord). God can not be divided, only humanity can be.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Whatever authority you think you have, it means nothing here.

I don't claim to have any authority. My Church does, though, because Jesus granted it to be so.

It impresses none for you to say you have authority given by Christ.

Again, you're interpreting what I said, not listening to what I said. The Church has the authority given by Christ. Not me, and not you.

I could say the same.

You could say it, but you'd have no biblical foundation.

What convinces here on CF is the argument you make and how well you use scripture to support your position.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm merely stating the truth.

Here in GT, scripture is the ultimate authority.

Not for Catholics.

You may not agree with my argument and the scripture I might use to support such. That is fine, but if you think it wrong then you should be able to express how it is wrong and support your position with further scripture.

I am free to express how it is wrong without using Scripture, but using the Word of God.

For you to respond to a lengthy post with just "I don't need you to interpret Scripture for me" is a privileged dismissal.

Why? You have not demonstrated that you have any authority to interpret Scripture.

This forum would be completely lacking in edification if every exchange was, "I am right, you are wrong" without support for such a claim.

Note, that one who speaks on a soapbox is one who does not engage in a discussion of the issue; that means an exchange/back and forth of ideas is absent. I have never dismissed a counter argument to one of my positions with just "my interpretations comes with authority given by Christ". It is akin to I am right because I say I am right. To me, it is a sign of failure in arguing ones position.

Note that I have attempted to exchange ideas, but you just dismiss them out of hand. You're the one saying you're right because you're right. I'm saying I'm right because my Church has authority given by Christ, and I'm a member of that body.

Now I have seen you argue some statements back and forth and I commend you for those, but this case was different.

meh.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Wrong, as showed again and again. A simple reading of it without overruling preconceived ideas clearly teaches that the workmanship of believers which they built the church with it being burned up, consistent with the consumption of the tares which grew up with the wheat, and which results in the loss of rewards, not gain, with believers being saved despite of this loss, not because of it.

I disagree with your interpretation, because my Church has authority to interpret Scripture, and says otherwise.

Thus no one is being purified in the judgment seat of Christ in order to enter Heaven (and they already are with the Lord), but instead the issue in 1Co. 3 is that of particular rewards, and despite your vain attempt to make the fire of 1Cor 3 into the purgative fire of Purgatory, it remains that this judgment awaits the second coming of Christ, as clearly shown.

See above.

 

[Root of Jesse]

@Root of Jesse said....



I replied......

Really it has always been routed out?

Paul says that the apostasy is in the church.....

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. (Acts 20:29:31)



Interesting.........

Pope John Paul apologised on behalf of the RCC to the atrocities that were committed in the name of religion by countless consecutive popes and bishops who across a period of over a 1000 years were on a blood rampage.

He did not. He said, paraphrasing, that, if there were attrocities committed in the name of religion on the part of popes and bishops, we're sorry for them. But you cannot point to any such things. There were wicked popes who had concubines, children out of wedlock, were only interested in worldly power, but none of them had anything to do with instituting doctrine. They were personally wicked, but did no crimes to mankind.

Yes, I see your point, the institution took a millennium to step in and to push out those wicked popes who took part in acts of terror. I see, the institution just needed a decade, two or three maybe, to hold those pedophiles amongst the clergy accountable for their actions.

What acts of terror did THE CHURCH commit that needed to be expunged? Please, enlighten us?

Not to mention that the legacy by how the institution would take care of those wicked popes by a slide of hand, that is they mysteriously were smothered by a pillow in their sleep, poisoned by an unknown, thrown into the sea by an unknown and many who were said to be martyred were later rescinded that status.......

You'll have to provide evidence here, too...

If a religious institution is a white bed sheet and on the bed sheet there is one, two, three or maybe more blood stains on it, then it is safe to say that a murder has been committed on the bed sheet. Off course the bed sheet is infallible, as some say the bed sheet had nothing to do with it. However the bed sheet was the scene of the crime and a crime investigation will lead to those assigned, who are supposed to push out this apostasy by doing what they are told, right?

Hmmmmm.........

Yeah, not sure what you're trying to say. The institution can make mistakes, but the faith be still 100% correct.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I disagree with your interpretation, because my Church has authority to interpret Scripture, and says otherwise.See above.

Wrong once again: your church says she uniquely has authority to faithfully interpret Scripture, which does not make it so, while she has not interpreted 1Co. 3 as indisputably referring to purgatory, and in fact, the notes to your own NAB on the Vatican web sight explicitly state:

The text of ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZ8.HTM#$4AC) And also states that the judgment here is the great day of the Lord.

And regardless if she did indisputably teach that 1Co. 3 refers to purgatory, as some mistaken CFs did, that still does not make it right under the premise that Rome uniquely has authority to faithfully interpret Scripture, for that is no more valid than that those who sat in the seat of Moses as the magisterial stewards of Scripture over Israel, to whom "were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And thus, sounding like Rome in response to what powerfully contradicted them,

answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) (John 7:47-50)

The elitist arrogant presumption of your remark is no better.

 

[Berean777]

He did not. He said, paraphrasing, that, if there were attrocities committed in the name of religion on the part of popes and bishops, we're sorry for them. But you cannot point to any such things. There were wicked popes who had concubines, children out of wedlock, were only interested in worldly power, but none of them had anything to do with instituting doctrine. They were personally wicked, but did no crimes to mankind.
What acts of terror did THE CHURCH commit that needed to be expunged? Please, enlighten us?You'll have to provide evidence here, too...Yeah, not sure what you're trying to say. The institution can make mistakes, but the faith be still 100% correct.

Friend, this awefully sounds like the same pleadings to institutional immunity, by the Jewish church hierarchy, when they defended their Abrahamic faith by saying......

Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?47Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

See Jesus charges their religious institution as having murdered Abel right down to the last Old Testament prophet Zechariah. This means that Jesus is placing this religious Institution and its very Abrahamic faith on notice and calling it a corrupt institution from its foundational beginnings. The children who try to defend its Abrahamic faith, results in Jesus calling them liars and the devil's children.

This is a very serious charge that Jesus placed on what was believed by its children as an infallible institution that was acknowledged by its children as an institution that made mistakes, at the hands of their fathers who murdered prophets, but would adamantly continuously repeat that the faith is still 100% correct.

My question to you is, is it so?

Don't believe me, please believe Jesus he is correct in saying what he said. His saying, places on notice any religious institution that makes similar claims.

At least read what Jesus thought and had to say about your statement.....

The institution can make mistakes, but the faith be still 100% correct

Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. 48So your testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

The testimony of Jesus refutes the claim by any religious institution that declares to have 100% correct faith. This is what the Jewish church hierarchy during the time of Jesus claimed, by saying that thy were the true 100% correct/ligitamate Abrahamic faith, regardless of what crimes their ancestors did in the name of religion. Jesus calls them liars like their father the Devil.

The false claims that are made by any religious institution in regards to being that 100% correct/ligitamate faith, must therefore be dismissed, because this false claim goes against everything that Jesus had taught.