Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[samir]

"hyper-dulia"

If you bothered to do any research, you would know that hyper-dulia is veneration and not worship which Catholics believed is due to God alone.

 

[Rick Otto]

If you bothered to do any research, you would know that hyper-dulia is veneration and not worship which Catholics believed is due to God alone.

I NEVER bother with your redefined "research".
Just like I NEVER swallowed the camel of veneration not being worship.
Best you convince The Catholic Encyclopedia before you try and persuade me with your condescension.

 

[pescador]

Jesus promised to build His church in Matthew 16. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be the Catholic church. It's certainly not one of the Protestant sects.

How is Jesus calling Peter "Satan" relevant? Do you think Jesus lied or changed his mind after Peter denied him?

There were many churches spread throughout the Mediterranean region; there wasn't a single monolithic church headed by one Pope figure until Constantine made it that way, basing it on the structure of the Roman empire with one Emperor as the head. As is clear throughout the New Testament, especially in Revelation, the churches had their problems as far as doctrine, behavior, and leadership went. There is no single church named as "the church" in the New Testament. So which one of the many NT churches became the Catholic church? Which one became the Orthodox church? Which evolved into the Protestant churches? -> It's impossible to say <-

The church is "the body of Christ". He is the head, we believers are the body. To think the body is a corporate pyramidal organization is not only entirely wrong, but it goes back to the Old Covenant (which Jesus did away with) with its hierarchical leadership, its temple (a highly decorated sacred building), and a specially-designated priesthood (all believers are royal priests with special gifts from God).

How is calling Peter the first Pope and founder of the church relevant? He was a flawed man to whom God gave the revelation that Jesus was indeed God's Messiah. Jesus called him "Satan", hardly what one would call "the founder of the church"; he denied knowing Jesus shortly thereafter (the exact opposite of spreading the Gospel), and behaved hypocritically regarding Jews and Gentiles a few years later. The church is built on the revelation of Jesus' being the Messiah, not on one single person.

The body of Christ is all believers, not just one sect, and the Bible is the word of God. The church is made up of fallible people; the Bible is infallible. Sola Scriptura.

 

[samir]

There were many churches spread throughout the Mediterranean region; there wasn't a single monolithic church headed by one Pope figure until Constantine made it that way, basing it on the structure of the Roman empire with one Emperor as the head.

If you took the effort to study church history you would quickly learn that Constantine didn't change anything. It's a Protestant myth that anti-catholics use to slander the Church and justify their rebellion.

As is clear throughout the New Testament, especially in Revelation, the churches had their problems as far as doctrine, behavior, and leadership went.

Where does the New Testament say that any of the churches taught false or contradictory doctrines that weren't correct by a church council?

There is no single church named as "the church" in the New Testament. So which one of the many NT churches became the Catholic church? Which one became the Orthodox church? Which evolved into the Protestant churches? -> It's impossible to say <-

Scripture is clear that Jesus only founded one church. To say it doesn't exist or that it's impossible to know which one he founded is a rejection of Jesus and God's word. If you read the New Testament and the ECFs you'll see that the individual parishes were united as one church believing and teaching one gospel and united in doctrine unlike Protestants today where each sect teaches their own interpretations that often contradict what other sects teach.

Which one became the Orthodox church?

They were all orthodox and united in doctrine. Every church that preserved the ancient Christian faith was an orthodox church.

The church is "the body of Christ". He is the head, we believers are the body. To think the body is a corporate pyramidal organization is not only entirely wrong, but it goes back to the Old Covenant (which Jesus did away with) with its hierarchical leadership, its temple (a highly decorated sacred building), and a specially-designated priesthood (all believers are royal priests with special gifts from God).

The New Testament is clear Jesus founded a visible church and not some invisible body of believers who each follow a different gospel based on their own personal interpretations of whatever books in the bible they haven't rejected.

How is calling Peter the first Pope and founder of the church relevant? He was a flawed man to whom God gave the revelation that Jesus was indeed God's Messiah. Jesus called him "Satan", hardly what one would call "the founder of the church"; he denied knowing Jesus shortly thereafter (the exact opposite of spreading the Gospel), and behaved hypocritically regarding Jews and Gentiles a few years later.

Jesus called him "Satan" because of his actions. If you kept reading you would see that Jesus forgave him after he repented and told him 3 times to feed his sheep. That doesn't sound like he disowned him.

 

[samir]

I NEVER bother with your redefined "research".
Just like I NEVER swallowed the camel of veneration not being worship.
Best you convince The Catholic Encyclopedia before you try and persuade me with your condescension.

In other words, you prefer myths and biased anti-catholic slander instead of the truth. It doesn't sound like it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with you.

 

[Albion]

I NEVER bother with your redefined "research".
Just like I NEVER swallowed the camel of veneration not being worship.
Best you convince The Catholic Encyclopedia before you try and persuade me with your condescension.

In other words, you prefer myths and biased anti-catholic slander instead of the truth. It doesn't sound like it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with you.

First time I recall having a Catholic wannabe call the Catholic Catechism mythical and biased. Usually, it's treated as if it were the Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Part 2 (not proof read):

No church believes that.

No church believes that in "enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it? Instead, Rome and thus RCs do:

One must become good enough to enter Heaven:

Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. "whosoever comes into God's presence must be perfectly pure for in the strictest sense His "eyes are too pure, to behold evil" (Habakkuk 1:13).

Purgatory means to purify, and which is with purifying punishments;

“It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated [atoned, be compensated] either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.” (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967)

The RCC has believed, if perhaps not definitively, that this purifying fire torments:

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas: it is the same fire which torments the damned in hell and cleanses the just in Purgatory.

RCs are offered an indulgences which means remission of punishments in purgatory, and includes saying rote (Rosary) prayers (no doubt the Protestant Cath. here will object to this description, which is par for the course):

Recitation of the Marian rosary. "a plenary indulgence is granted [under certain other conditions], if the rosary is recited in a church or public oratory or in a family group, a religious community or pious association; a partial indulgence is granted in other circumstances. "now the rosary is a certain formula of prayer, which is made up of fifteen decades of 'hail marys' with an 'our father' before each decade.. -
The Enchiridion of Indulgences, Issued by the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary, 1968

That's a practice, not a doctrine.

You attempt at minimizing this is true to form, but it is more than just a practice: it is canon law, subject to change, but binding nonetheless.

No wonder Catholics rely on amorphous "oral tradition," for under the premise of magisterial infallibility all sorts of fables can be chanelled into binding doctrine, even claiming to "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.

"Yet you believe in scriptural infallibility so it seems infallibility is not the problem."

Which is like saying, in response to the call to worship the Beast, you believe in God so it seems worship is not the problem. Infallibility itself is not the problem, as even a pagan you states "there is a creator" is speaking an infallible statement, and even the OT high priest could unintentionally speak an infallible prophecy (versus a binding.

Nor is it a problem with authority, which the OT magisterium certainly had, as do civil authorities. But the problem is that of ensured, perpetual magisterial infallibility of office, that those in such office will be infallible whenever speaking in accordance with its subject and scope-based criteria binding doctrine. Which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture, despite dissent from the magisterium being a capital offense, and which was not how God fulfilled promises of His presence and preservation and guidance.

In fact, God often raised up men from without the magisterium which reproved it, and were rejected, and which is how the church actually began, contrary to the Catholic model for determination of Truth. Requirements of submission to man in Scripture are always conditional upon not being in conflict with the established word of God, and which even the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is, in addition to its men and the traditions of men they demand assent of faith and or mind and will to.

The problem most Protestants seem to have with the catholic/orthodox church isn't submission or infallibility but simply an unwillingness to become a disciple of Jesus because they see it as a burden they don't want to bear and want something easier.

Which borders on insolence, as the problem is indeed with the contrary nature of Catholicism warranting her demanded submission, which would be contrary to being a disciple of Jesus who began a church in dissent from even those who sat in the seat of Moses, and which established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

As for a lesser burden, once again due to the vast scope it typically includes, invoking "Protestants" is essentially meaningless as regards judging the effect of upholding Scripture as supreme versus Rome.

And rather than those in churches who most strongly uphold Scripture as being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God - which few Catholics (and "mainline Prots do) - testifying to less commitment and liberal views, instead it is those with liberal views on Scripture who overall are among the least committed and liberal souls, manifestly finding their home in Catholicism rather than evangelical-type churches.

You can invoke old official statements all you want, but under the Roman model, it is the current leadership that shows how RCs are to understand such, and who effectually teach that morally liberal RCs are members like the rest, while her own scholarship is overall liberal on the Bible (reducing clearly historical accounts to fables)

"I believed the catholic/orthodox gospel based on scripture before I knew what those churches taught."

Deceived and being deceived. Not only is the Catholic gospel - with its salvation by merit that requires submission to all the extrascriptural, unscriptural and aberrant teachings of Rome or the Orthodox is a distortion of what the NT church preached. In addition, while for both true faith requires submission to their church, the two substantially do not even agree on many other things, even no less than purgatory (though EOs have their own version) or submission to the pope, which historical infallible papal statements require for salvation.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (ex cathedra according to Manning):
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff..."
"If [some translations say “when"], therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). — http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs...

On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

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; http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b.

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... Over the past 2,000 years there have been many heresies, schisms, and systems of thought comprehensively opposed to Catholicism. But none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents. — http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii

"I've refuted it quite easily multiple times. I don't have the time to do it again here."

Which is another think you can only wish was true, and sadly for you, refutations of your pseudo-Protestant Catholic faith have been posted for all to see.

"Which is contradictory to the heart being purified by faith before baptism, (Acts 15:9) and that with the heart man believers unto righteousness, and whosoever shall confess the Lord (in faith) shall be saved."

I don't see any contradiction.

Regardless of what you see, it is contrary to your plain statement that "Baptism is the instrument God gave us to receive His grace through faith." Making baptism an act that effects regeneration as per Rome, even for souls who cannot repent and believe, is contrary to the faith that is or will be expressed in baptism being what appropriates the washing of regeneration, which again, is what Peter preached and converted souls testified to. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)

Scripture says baptism regenerates and washes away sin so I have to reject your theory and stick with scripture.

Wrong: you plainly do not stick with scripture, which again, shows it is the faith that is or will be expressed in baptism being what appropriates the washing of regeneration. God rewards the obedience of faith, but it is not the act of baptism that effects regeneration, so that an infant can be born again, but God purifies the heart by effectual faith.

I recommend learning what it means to believe and call upon the Lord. Just believing the watered down popular Protestant gospel isn't enough.

I recommend reading what i wrote, which is contrary to the watered down easybelievism of Catholicism and much of Protestantism. One leaves one believing they are a child of God via a ritual as an infant, and thus never are called to come to Christ as lost, damned and morally destitute sinners who need salvation on Christ's account, but presume they will merit eternal life and thus (for RCs) obtain the holiness needed to enter in "purgatory." If they were saved on Christ's account then actual perfection of character would not be needed to see God.

Of course, another difference with the Orthodox is that

Roman Catholicism teaches, also, that, in the Age to Come, man will, with his intellect and with the assistance of grace, behold the Essence of God. The Orthodox declare that it is impossible to behold God in Himself. Not even divine grace, will give us such power. The saved will see, however, God as the glorified flesh of Christ. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox__Roman_Catholic_theological_differences

No one believe baptism makes one good enough to go to Heaven

"Not it is not. It looked like you misunderstood what you quoted or used faulty reasoning to conclude there was a contradiction"

How can you say this, except that you refuse to see what contradicts you?
As said, Rome says the act of baptism works "ex opere operato," that "by virtue of the rite or substance employed," (Catholic Encyclopedia > Sacramentals) it "actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit" (CCC 1215) and renders one regenerated and "immaculate...so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven." (Trent, Ses. 5)

Baptism sure looks like it baptism makes one good enough to go to Heaven to them.

"I let scripture interpret scripture. Scripture says the apostles taught the faith orally to the bishops in the churches they founded. Scripture says those bishops passed along that faith to their successors. "

You do not let scripture interpret scripture, for Scripture nowhere says those bishops orally passed along the faith without any corruption to their successors, which you need it yo say but can only imagine or wish it said!

I repeat, Scripture nowhere says what you need it to, that those bishops orally passed along the faith without any corruption to their successors, nor does it ever promise that they would, but instead what Scripture promises is that "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. "(Acts 20:30)

And which describes popes such as the 4th c. Damasus 1 - who is officially a Roman Catholic Church "saint" - who made himself and papacy into a cultic type entity whom disciples would and did even kill for.

After employing a murderous mob to secure his papal seat from his rival "successor to Peter," in contrast "Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope. In 378, he persuaded the government to recognize the holy see as a court of first instance and also of appeal for the Western episcopate..."

In tune with his ideas, Theodosius 1 (379-95) declared (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion... for Damasus this primacy was...exclusively on his [presumption of] being the direct successor of St. Peter and so the rightful heir of the promises made to him by Christ (Mt. 16:18) [although many "church fathers"did not interpret that text as such].

As regards this unscriptural (NT) marriage of church and state RC historian Eamon Duffy finds regarding bishops, "Already powerful and influential men, they now became grandees on a par with the wealthiest senators in the city. Bishops all over the Roman world would now be expected to take on the role of judges, governors, great servants of state.."- “Saints and Sinners,” New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997, 2001, pp. 37-38.

And thereby drawing away disciples after them with their accretions of extrascriptural and unscriptural traditions, versus Christ as revealed in the NT.

Rather than orally passing along the faith without any corruption to their successors being the means by which God preserved Truth, God preserved His word in writing, as shown, which as written, became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience, as is abundantly evidenced.

Thus as said, it was not because oral tradition kept the word of God, but becauise it was written that "it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Kings 22:11)

"The reason the bishops were unanimous about John 3:5 "

No, you simply cannot assert that the bishops were unanimous about John 3:5 unless you have statements by them saying this on that verse, and all you likely have is teachings from maybe 5 out of well over 100 so-called (early) church fathers from which you can provide this interpretation. Note that even based on what we can examine, ECFS are not actually unanimous in many things for which Caths claim the unanimous consent of the fathers” for. [/FONT]

That they did, from what we can see, believe in baptismal regeneration is true, and which is another example of unity in sincere error (but the Lord progressively leads into all Truth), but since baptism is supposed to require and express true faith, which is what actually appropriates the washing of regeneration, then as said, that can be the occasion for their salvation.

However, since it is actually the faith that is behind baptism by which one is justified then after insisting Jn. 3:5 is referring to baptism, they are compelled to allow for baptism by desire, which is contrary to the unequivocal nature of Jn. 3:5 referring to a man needing to be born of water (which represents natural generation: Hand spirit.

...was because that's what the apostles taught them orally and they passed it on to their successors. Therefore, if you reject the bishops/church fathers, you are rejecting scripture and not following God's word.

WRONG! It is you who is GUILTY of making the words and beliefs of uninspired men equal to or assuredly interpretive of the wholly inspired word of God! You can even imagine that despite ZERO evidence of anyone praying to anyone else in Scripture by God, and only being instructed to pray to God in Scripture, and encouraged to come directly into the holy or holies, and with Christ being the only Heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, that in btwn the words in Scripture the prophets and leaders of the people of God were telling them to pray to angels and then to a special class of of believers in Heaven!

And you accuse me of rejecting scripture and not following God's word?!

Jn. 3:5 is less extreme, as i can see how one can assume this refers to baptism, but as shown, it is contrary to the unequivocal nature of "verily verily" statements made to sinners, and to the clear testimony of Scripture of souls being born again without water, their hearts being purified by the faith they subsequently expressed in baptism.

No it does not. John 3:5 says a person must be born again. That normally occurs through water baptism but God can regenerate people in other ways if water is not available for baptism.

No, John 3:5 says unless a man is born of water and the Spirit then he cannot enter the kingdom of God, and which makes no exceptions. Either a sinner must be born of water and the Spirit or he does not. However, consistent with the gospel of John (flesh vs. spirit; below vs. above, etc.), contextually the natural is being contrasted with the spiritual, as v. 5 follows v.4:

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? (John 3:4)

And thus it makes perfect sense that the Lord would refer to the flesh and the spiritual, meaning that one must be not simply exist and thus be conceived/born physically, represented by the water - which in 1Jn. 5:5 (along with the blood) supports the incarnation of Christ against the gnostics with their phantom christ - but by the Spirit.

And thus v.6 follows perfectly with this as referring to the two births:

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)

And which is confirmed by souls being born of the Spirit without being born of water, which would be contradictory to the two being the same, and baptismal regeneration.
And as said, John does refer to water as birth in,

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6)

1st John refutes the belief of some souls who seemed to deny the literal incarnation of Christ, one who was not only literally born but who had real blood and thus could bleed and feel pain, versus a phantom, and thus an affirmation that Christ was both born but as a real human is fitting.

"Scripture is very clear that baptism is necessary for salvation. Most rules have exceptions so that's not a problem."

Most rules but not all, and this is a problem due to the nature of the statement. You might as well argue that such statements as "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1) has an exception.

That is absurd. You invoke Scripture as showing what Christ taught, but rely on extraScriptural teaching, imagining that they passed on uncorrupted understanding, yet which is contrary to evidence.

Not absurd but easily proven as I've already showed.

It is indeed absurd for asserting that what post-apostolic men taught is the same as what the apostles taught orally cannot be proven, but presumes that oral transmission would be preserved from corruption or additions.

And which is nowhere taught (despite wishful Cath extrapolations), and contrary to evidence, including as evidenced by Jewish oral traditions, while it is writing that God is shown to be God's chosen means of preservation. And which, unlike oral T, enables much verification.

"What does Jerome's personal opinion have to do with anything? No one thinks the opinions of saints are infallible"

What? What does Jerome's personal opinion have to do with anything? Because you invoke such as if they are equal to the Scriptures, including beyond the issue of baptism. And if such great men as Jerome held perverse views and argumentation then it testifies against the validity of other claims of apostolic teaching being passed on. Ultimate it means that one trusts "the Church" as to what really is apostolic tradition amidst the traditions. And do not try the "unanimous consent" presumption as that has already been shown to be specious.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Part 3 (not proof read):

"Without a church, there is no bible so if I reject the church I can't be a Christian."

That is more perverse argumentation, for it not only presumes that rejecting the claimed one true NT church today (by rejecting some of what it claims is of God and ultimately its authority) is that of rejecting the one which was an instrument for writing Holy Writ and a discerner of it, and that one cannot be a true believer by faith in what the instrument for writing Scripture provided and yet reject that instrument as being the infallible authority on it, as the claimed one true NT church today presumes.

To illustrate your problem consider that without the Jews as The People of God, a Holy Nation, over which were those who sat in the seat of Moses, there was no body Scriptures, and thus if anyone rejected the Jews (by rejecting its authority and some of what it claims is of God) they cannot be part of the People of God.

And since without this People of God, there was no body Scriptures upon which itinerant preachers could validate there claims, and therefor there could be no church, and you cannot be a Christian.

You presume much of your (evidently) chosen church, but he that exalted himself shall be abased.

In reality, while as your syllogism expresses, while Catholics deplore the premise of the common people correctly discerning what is of God in dissent from the historical magisterium, that is how the church began and the faith often preserved, and even the instruments of Scripture, which Catholicism is not, must be subject to it.

Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then 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. (John 7:45-49)

"Doesn't matter. The church understood the washing of regeneration as baptism because that's what the apostles' taught orally."

Which damnable fallacious unprovable premise reveals that it really does not matter to you what Scripture says, but instead you esteem men above that which is written, and which nowhere promises that oral T would be preserved uncorrupted and that the word of God would be whatever claimed successors say it is.

"There is no escape clause as everyone, without exception, must be born again."

There is indeed. Honestly admit that your argument is not simply that everyone, without exception, must be born again, but that baptism is that means according to Jn. 3:5 and Titus 3:5. Yet neither text can mean they must be baptized to be so.

"Actually, Peter said baptism was necessary for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)."

No, Peter did not say a word about baptism in the text referred to, by plainst stated, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43)

Nor did he say that "baptism was necessary for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38, but there he told them to repent, and be baptized for [eis: into; concerning; etc] the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

Peter thus states that "whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," and confirms that God purified their hearts by faith in Acts 15;9, while in Acts 2:38 he calls them to do something that requires faith, which is actually what obtains the washing of regeneration. And thereby the two teachings on how to obtain forgiveness perfectly conflate with each other, which otherwise would be contradictory.

"The point was the New Covenant was open to Gentiles, not that those particular Gentiles who spoke in tongues were regenerated."

What? How can the New Covenant be open to Gentiles except in the light of the fact that Gentiles who were told "whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" did so and were manifestly regenerated? When will you cease marginalizing what is contrary to baptism being necessary for the remission of sins and regeneration?

"No one is innocent. Romans 5:12 says all are held guilty of Adam's sin:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned"

One of the most contentious passages in all Scripture, one in which your EO and your RC Catholicism disagree, with the issue of Original Sin being "believed by many Orthodox to be a fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Churches...."

[Quoting the Vatican] For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act. . ." - https://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

As pervasive as the term original sin has become, it may come as a surprise to some that it was unknown in both the Eastern and Western Church until Augustine (c. 354-430). The concept may have arisen in the writings of Tertullian, but the expression seems to have appeared first in Augustine's works. Prior to this the theologians of the early church used different terminology indicating a contrasting way of thinking about the fall, its effects and God's response to it. The phrase the Greek Fathers used to describe the tragedy in the Garden was ancestral sin.

Ancestral sin has a specific meaning. The Greek word for sin in this case, amartema, refers to an individual act indicating that the Eastern Fathers assigned full responsibility for the sin in the Garden to Adam and Eve alone...

The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, "What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?" The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death. (I Corinthians 15:21) "Man is born with the parasitic power of death within him," writes Fr. Romanides (2002, p. 161). Our nature, teaches Cyril of Alexandria, became "diseased...through the sin of one" (Migne, 1857-1866a). It is not guilt that is passed on, for the Orthodox fathers; it is a condition, a disease. - http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin

St Augustine seemed convinced that the guilt resulting from Adam’s sin is transmitted through the sexual act, from generation to generation, like some deleterious gene. This “original sin” must be removed if we are to be saved from death, to share in eternal life. The question as to how this is accomplished has received many different answers. Medieval Catholic piety held that this occurs through infused grace, which confers upon us the power to perform righteous deeds and thereby actually to become or be made righteous...The popular notion that we are saved only if our merits outweigh our sins on the scales of divine justice is usually attributed to Roman Catholics..

To the Greek Fathers, what we inherit from Adam is not his sin and consequent guilt, but mortality.4 From Adam (understood, really, as an archetype), we “inherit” the sting of death. Death has spread to all of humanity, as an inevitable consequence of our fallen nature; yet each of us, under the threat of death, rebels personally against God, the Author of Life. This means that our guilt is our own; we bring it upon ourselves. - https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/gods-righteousness

Then you have the unscriptural imagination of St Maximus in Ad Thalassium 61, who makes marital relations the cause of mans sinful nature:

But at the instant he was created, the first man, by use of his senses, squandered his spiritual capacity – the very natural desire for the mind of God – on sensible things. In this, his very first movement, he activated an unnatural pleasure through the medium of the senses. … After the transgression, [the pleasure of sexual reproduction] naturally preconditioned the births of all human beings, and no one at all was by nature free from birth subject to the passion associated with this pleasure; rather, everyone was requited with sufferings, and subsequent death, as the natural punishment.

the Baltimore Catechism continues to define it as sin that “comes down to us from our first parents, and we are brought into the world with its guilt on our soul” (Q. 266)...

Although the Roman Catholic doctrine of original sin seems to have been re-articulated over the last hundred years and many Roman Catholics today no longer seem to believe the teaching that infants are born guilty of sin, it is clear from the history of Roman Catholic theology that original sin included imputation of the guilt of Adam and Eve’s sin upon all of humanity...

even though they may not technically inherit Adam’s guilt, unbaptized infants who die are relegated to an eternity in limbo, functionally implicating the traditional Roman Catholic understanding of original sin—a doctrine which ultimately dies the death of a thousand qualifications. - https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orth...riginal-and-ancestral-sin-a-brief-comparison/

So much for a unified Catholicism on this verse and issue, and which includes that of your vaunted church "fathers" and oral tradition supplying what Scripture allegedly does not.

However reading Rm. 5:12 in context versus what the key word your translation renders "because" means, it clearly states that death is because of sin, but as the next verse explains, "sin is not imputed when there is no law, Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.'

Adam's transgression was not under the law of Moses, but it was the breaking of God's law, which is what sin is. (1Jn. 3:4) Yet souls even died who were not personally guilty after the similitude of Adam's transgression, but all suffered the effects of Adam's sin, as do innocent infants who cannot be charged with personal sin.

And it would be inconsistent for Catholics to argue for sin simply being imputed to personally innocent infants (which sin keeps them from Heaven) when they reject righteousness being being imputed to the unGodly by faith which enables them to be with God.

Moreover, RCs argue that "all have sinned" does not include Mary, though that is not taught in Scripture, and where the Spirit characteristically make note of exceptions to the norm, but is another tradition of men, yet lacking manifest "unanimous consent."

Back to Rm. 5:12, all realize the effects of the actions of others, and even all creation suffers for Adam's sin, (Rm. 8:20-22) though creation cannot be charged with sin. This effect on morally unaccountable humans cannot be actual punishment for their sin, nor can they be punished for what their father Adam did, (Dt. 24:16; 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20) but they can suffer the effects in this life, as does all creation.

And one other effect is that they will sin, which brings us to "because all sinned." For contrary to this, the Greek word translated "because" here is never translated as that in my translation (KJV), and the RC DRB has " in [Adam] whom all have sinned (the RVC NAB has "inasmuch as all sinned" because as an outline of its usage shows, "because" is hardly fitting:

upon, on, at, by, before

of position, on, at, by, over, against

to, over, on, at, across, against

And again since even animals die because of Adam's sin, as did souls to whom sin was not imputed as under the law, or had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression," then death passing upon all men cannot be "because" all have sinned, esp. as culpable for sin.

Instead, Paul is dealing with "sin" as in regards to its effect, that sin entered into the world and death by sin. Adam sinned and brought a curse to all under his stewardship. And thus "death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" in that as a consequence of sin in the world then everyone who can sin has sinned, but which excludes those who die yet cannot sin, which includes amoral creation and humans.

But while the sin of Adam brought death to all, but only damnation to unredeemed culpable souls, the atonement of Christ offers salvation to all, but only the benefits are realized by believers. Glory to God.

"Romans 5:12 specifically says all sinned including those who did not commit an actual personal sin like Adam. So even though babies have not sinned, they are still guilty of Adam's sin.
Romans 5:12-14 (NKJV) - "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam""

Wrong; as explained it does not say all sinned/are guilty of sin - which the Holy Spirit says is the transgression of God's law, and punishes souls based on what they actually did - and you have your own tradition-based Orthodox disagreeing with you, and both of you claim to be going by church fathers.

"Scripture says they were cut to the heart so we can assume they believed. Even if they didn't, it doesn't change that Peter said baptism and repentance were necessary for salvation."

Wrong: They believed/were convicted that they needed salvation as their crucified and risen Christ would make them His footstool, but they did not believe unto salvation for they did not know how to be saved, which was their question.

"Yet none of the translators of any major translation who understand the biblical languages better than you chose to translate the word that way."

True, though more literal translations as Young's and the LITV say "to," while "for" is fine as baptism means to believe, since it requires and expresses it. And thus Peter preached that whoever believes receives forgiveness of sins.

"What you're really doing by questioning the translation is putting your own tradition (salvation by faith apart from baptism) "

Wrong: Scripture plainly states whoever believes receives forgiveness of sins, and testifies to just that, but as repeatedly stated, only effectual faith, that which effects obedience, and which normatively means baptism as the first formal act.

"Actually, the word repent means to change one's mind by turning from sin and resolving to live for God. Faith alone is not enough."

Wrong again as distinguishing btwn saving faith and repetance, as one cannot truly believe without repentance. If you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, then it means you will seek to act in accordance with His known will. Thus the many verses that promise salvation by believing, not mentioning repentance. (Jn. 3:16,36; 5:24; 20:31, etc.) Likewise repentance can be used in place of believing. (Acts 2:28; 3:19)
Faith that remains alone, that willnot/does not effect obedience, is not enough, and will not justify one, but those whose works testify to faith will be justified in judgment. (Rm. 2:13)

Please do not resort to this! It is exceedingly clear that tongues was the evidence that they had received the Holy Spirit. "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us." (Acts 15:8)

"They are different but if the Gentiles were regenerated prior to receiving the gift of tongues that would still be consistent with catholic teaching."

They are NOT different, as it is incontrovertible that these Gentiles were regenerated as evidenced by the gift of tongues, prior to baptism. Which is only consistent with catholic teaching by compelled reduction of baptism to desire.

The problem with relying on secondary sources is that people often lie. I read the actual words of all the ECFs from the 1st to 4th centuries for myself and none of them rejected infant baptism.

Yikes! You blithely dismiss as a lying scholarship that contradicts what you assert, and which you say is unanimously supported by statements by a very few ECFs (and despite some of their teachings that you dismiss, while a few writings - as six attributed to Ignatius of Antioch - are considered spurious even by the CE, and Rome otherwise made much use of forgeries), which are which present yourself a student of, yet somehow your eyes failed to see Tertullian On Baptism

But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. "Give to every one who begs you," has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: "Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine;" Matthew 7:6 and, "Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men's sins."..

"But Paul too was, in fact, 'speedily' baptized:" for Simon, his host, speedily recognized him to be "an appointed vessel of election." God's approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every "petition" may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children...Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asks." - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

" If baptism was forbidden to infants then scripture should have said something when it said whole households were baptized."

Which must presume infants were present, for which we have no evidence, nor would any injunction be expected if there were since the requirement of repentant faith was given from the beginning, and confirmed. In the mouth of 2 or 3 witness let every word be established.

Even the CCC can only say in regards to the NT evidence, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized. (CCC 1252),

"Since there is zero scriptural evidence that baptism is not for infants, you are going beyond what is written. I prefer to stick to scripture."

Which is absurd, for the stated requirements exclude infants, and you have nothing to stick to in Scripture, in which the Holy Spirit would surely modify this requirement if paedobaptism were of God, seeing how critical it is said to be in Catholicism.

"You misunderstood "ex opere operato". Baptism regenerates by the grace of God, not because it is a magic ritual. If the person being baptized does not believe or has not repented he will not be regenerated."

Wrong again, and your bare assertion is contrary to what i documented, as for Rome the instrumentality of grace being conferred is the act of baptism, and while a proper disposition/openness is normally required of the subject, even those who cannot believe, as infants or the comatose, can be baptized/regenerated according to deceptive RC teaching.

"Zwingli freely admitted that all the doctors of the church during the first 1,500 years after Christ were unanimous in believing baptismal regeneration. "

Then they were as wrong as you in the light of the real doctors of the NT church. Baptism can indeed by the occasion of regeneration due to the faith it requires and expresses - and normally should be synonymous with the conversion event, and the reactionary marginalization of it by most of Protestantism is clearly wrong - but the act is not the instrumental cause.

"Rome believes all of it. Keep studying if you don't believe."

You keep trying this while it is i who provide documentation of what she teaches.[/QUOTE]

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The context clearly shows they are to obey because they sat in Moses' seat, not because they taught from the Old Testament which Jesus didn't mention anywhere.

Another false dichotomy, and absurd attempt to disassociate authority from Scripture. They reason sitting in the seat of Moses was significant was because Moses was the Law-giver, and who wrote it down as commanded, which is God's means of preservation.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14)
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. (Exodus 34:27)
And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing.. (Deuteronomy 10:4)
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)
And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law,..(Deuteronomy 27:3)
And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deuteronomy 31:24)
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. (Deuteronomy 31:26)
Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23)​

And thus it was not because of faithful oral transmission that the king of Israel ripped his clothes in repentance over, but the hearing of the written word, this being the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, upon which the NT church established its claims.

And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Kings 22:10-11)

Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. (2 Kings 22:13)

 

[Root of Jesse]

Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

This was said directly to Peter the man. Catholics often cite Jesus saying to Peter "on this rock I will build my church" as the start of the Catholic church and proclaim Peter to be the first Pope. Five verses later(!) Jesus calls Peter "Satan", not "Pope".

He said it to Satan who desired to have Peter. "Pope" is a title, and as such doesn't need to be in the Bible.

There is no biblical basis for Catholics to claim that they are the one true church, started by Jesus. None.

Ah, but there is only one Church Christ created, therefore, that church is universal. "Catholic" = universal, is not the name of a denomination. Denominationalism is anti-Biblical, though.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Here you go off again proclaiming a religious institution as a life onto itself, as if it has eternal life and is perpetually existing without being made accountable by the actions of her many sons, throughout history. In doing this you present a sinless institution that can do no wrong, as if it is God. This is a form of idolatry friend, it really is idolatry. The idol that is being raised in a similar way the golden calf was raised by the ancient Israelites as their salvation, is no different to making a non living entity as if it has indestructible life in its self and it is venerated as an idol of righteousness as if it is God.

I made no such claim, brother. Institutions, being human, have sin all through them. All institutions do. What I did claim is that Christ instituted one Church, and Christ is sinless, and everything He did is perfect, including the institution of His Church.

A religious institution that sets itself up in this way has unwittingly been made an idol of much veneration and worship. Believe it or not this form of temple centred worship is modelled after the bygone Pharisical religious institution that Jesus had abandoned as her spiritual husband and who made that house desolate.

Actually, there was nothing wrong with Temple worship, what was wrong was the Pharisaical heart of letter of the law versus spirit of the law. Jesus never abandoned His Father's house.

If we draw your line of thinking, then we can say Hitler's Nazi party or Sadam's Baathist or Moa's Communist party are infallible and unaccountable to the actions of its hierarchy who did evil acts in the name of that institution/party.

Who said they're not accountable for their actions? The people who did them certainly are, and God will be the judge, not man. Same thing with the priests who abused children-whether or not they were prosecuted under the secular law, they will be held accountable, as will we all be, for our sins.

Simply how can a religious institution be any different in principle?

This particular religious institution is of God. As Gamaliel told Paul-"If it is of God, nothing will stop it. If it is of man, nothing will come of it.

Unless that religious institution is thought of as if it is God himself, that is sinless.

We believe it is of God.

Let me ask you this question....is the RCC sinless?

Yes/No.

The institution? No, of course not. The faith? Yes. The sinfulness of the institution does not affect the perfection of the faith Christ gave us.

 

[Root of Jesse]

We were talking about Papal Supremacy. The point you are making here is not about the Papacy or Papal Supremacy.

We were? Point it out, please, or else, I missed your point in your sarcasm.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Aside from the Da Vinci code that you brought up, let us disect and to scrutinise your claim....

I love God's Word, and the Church that gives us all of it in the banquet

Many if not all Christians inclusive of Catholics make the claim that they love God's Word.

So there is no distinction between the written Word contained in the Holy Bible and God's Word. This means that your comment about me below is no different to your claim of loving God's Word...

But that's not ALL of God's word, and that's where we differ.

When we disect and to scrutinise your comment above, we can take it from a pure heart to mean that I too like your claim love God's Word. Offcourse there is another meaning that results from an impure heart and that is that the written Word of the Holy Bible is not God's Word and so I who follow the written word found in the four gospel accounts does not equal God's Word.

Oh, no, you'd be wrong, there. The Bible is certainly God's word, all 73 books. But that's not ALL of God's word, and that's where we differ.

Isn't this the issue of contention that the thread topic is trying to adress?

Easiest defense of Sola Scripture.

If for example sake, say that the inpure heart claims that me loving the written word is not the same of loving God's word, then let the scrutiny begin........

To me the Holy Ghost and Christ Jesus as my Kingly Chief Priest, are the ones to direct and to counsel me as my wonderful counsellors to the truth of God's Word.

So I lookup to and solely depend on Jesus as my God, who as the faithful shepherd, will come true with his promise that if I ask it will be given to me; if I seek (self discover) and I will find; if I knock and the door will be opened to me. (Matthew 7:7)

So Jesus does instruct the faithful to individually self discover and to own their faith as independent born again Christians. That is why our wonderful teacher and counselor Jesus instructs us to individually to ask, to seek and to knock on his door as the Chief High Priest who intercedes on our behalves in the Holy of Holies.

So the comment that I made in a previous post that you quoted is valid to how we are to grow and to come into the fullness of the Lord, that is if we are to take the faithful Lord at his word. The pure and repented heart will take the Lord on his word and to consider him as the only way, the only truth and the only life, for Jesus lives in us as he promised you in me and I in you, as he stands at the door of our hearts and knocks for us to open, so that he comes in and SUPS/commune with us.



What I have presented above is from a faithful born again and pure in heart Christian.

And what I have presented is from a faithful born again and pure in heart Christian. We disagree, simply, that the Bible is the totality of God's Word.

Now let us scrutinise your position.....

You said......



Firstly, by claiming that a religious institution gives you all of God's Word in order to complete your faith, you are implying that the 1st century apostles who as part of the great commission, had preached the word and established the faith, had somehow not given the complete faith. So that further doctrine some several hundred years later by a religious institution needed to make further additions to the faith in order to complete it.

There is no 'doctrine some several hundred year later'. What we believe is what the apostles believed. The fact is that the Church doesn't define any doctrine unless it comes into question, which, by default, means that it was believed previously, and anciently.
The institution doesn't 'give us' 'all of God's Word', either. The Holy Spirit does, it is the Church that recognizes it. The Church is the safeguard of the Truth. From your own Berean Study Bible, John 16:13 "However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come." Jesus was speaking to the Apostles; the Apostles knew they were going to die and they appointed successors whom they ordained with the same Holy Spirit.

If we are to draw your line of reasoning in regards to your claim, then those who were called to Christ, including the disciples and apostles had incomplete faith resulting from incomplete word of God and in this regard their salvation were incomplete. You said.......



So the banquet as you phrased it was incomplete as you claim, before a religious institution organised itself to then some several hundred years later to come up with a complete banquet.

The banquet was never incomplete. What happened is that some men picked and chose what they wanted to take from that banquet. Also, the religious institution was instituted by Christ, not some several hundred years later. And the men that made up the Church ensured no errors would creep in, willing to die for the Truth.

Even if you don't consider a single word that I said above, your claim places a religious institution in place of the Holy Ghost and Jesus, by making it the wonderful counsellor and teacher who is the way the truth and the life. By so doing you make the institution the sinless and eternal God who came on Pentecost.

No, it doesn't. The Holy Ghost guides the Church in ALL TRUTH, as John 16:13 says.

Your claim disturbs me so much that I would say that I would no more give credibility to your claim as I would to cult religious groups who advocate similar faith statements that places their institution as deity providing all the banquet.

It may disturb you because you don't understand the claim.

Your claim and your religious institution's position is so diametrically opposed to the promises and instructions that Jesus had given the faithful within the 1st century, that a religious institution would place itself in place of God and to claim that it is God by the very promises that it alleges to be able to give, that are not her promises to give in the first place.

But that's not my claim, nor is it the claim of my Church, Jesus' Church.

The abomination of desolation placed as if it is the Holy God is a plagerising of the 1st century apostolic faith and making it theirs when it is not theirs.

Anyone or any religious institution can claim anything and when things don't add up, there is usually plagerising of the original faith and theft is the result. Many cults and gnostics had stolen ideas from 1st century apostolic faith. These include Islam, Bahai movement and many others.

As Jesus would say you shall know them by their works. Hitler wanted to make the Nazi party sinless in the face of Germans, the Germans would never question the institution even when what it stood for was manifesting in murder. Any religious institution that has blood on its hands can not use an excuse of institution infallibility by taking versus out of context from the bible and making ridiculous claims that makes their institution unaccountable to the actions of those who represent it.

Fortunately as I said the world took out the Nazi party, Baath party and the rest of these so called infallible murderous institution.

As the Lord said you shall know them by their works.

You know, whenever you have to insert Hitler into an argument, you've lost the argument. You don't understand the claim-that's fine. Bye.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Truth comes by many witnesses of Christ. As the famous line goes......

Some cannot handle the truth.

Jesus said....

The truth shall set you free.

Let me add that the truth shall set you free from a religious institution that places itself in place of God as if it is the sinless, infallible, righteous and eternal God.

Listen and accept the testimony from numerous witnesses of Jesus. If people don't accept these testimonies that open up scriptures to those blinded by their religious institutions then there is no excuse based ignorance, that they can plead or relly on when the Lord calls them to give an answer.

The Truth is that the contents of Scripture are not contained in Scripture, that you have the Bible because the men of the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discerned what belonged there, and what didn't belong there. A couple examples of what, they decided, didn't belong there, are the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache. The Fathers of the Reformation, however, disagreed with some of the choices, such as the Letters of St. James. Luther wanted to reject several NT books, but was rebuked.

 

[Berean777]

I made no such claim, brother. Institutions, being human, have sin all through them. All institutions do. What I did claim is that Christ instituted one Church, and Christ is sinless, and everything He did is perfect, including the institution of His Church.

Did Christ put all his eggs in the one basket and say you are the relgious institution that I will place all my sheep in?

You correctly said Christ Jesus is perfect and sinless, so a outward worldly religious institution with hierarchy of a perishable and transferrable Chief Priesthood Office IS NOT a reflection of Christ's sinlessness or perfection, that is as you correctly stated "they being human, have sin all through them".

in this regard Christ Jesus would not put all his eggs in an outward worldly relgious institution of any sort. Please listen to where this reasoning is heading........

Jesus made it abundantly clear where the Pharisees or THE religious institution of the entire Old Testament times stood as far as his righteousness is concerned. So many times Jesus would let the relgious institution have it in ways that you and I could not even imagine. A relgious institution that had Abraham as the Patrairch and here is the Lord completely and utterly divorcing himself from it.

Question....why do you think that Jesus would re-institute another religious institution modelled after the Old Testament institution, after he proclaimed such an institution as a desolation?

It would be in error to think that Jesus would establish another worldly temple centred relgious institution like the Old Testament, especially when he made it so crystal clear when he declared his church to the Samaritan women at the well....

I believe there is a huge misunderstanding that people like yourself are having and are having difficulty grappling with the completely different faith movement that Jesus had established. Jesus was NOT instructing his disciples to build another outward temple centred relgious institution as a counterpart to the Old Testament relgious institution, rather he was instructing them towards self discovering an inward modelled temple, that is not conceived by bricks and mortar or a hierarchy as per his say, that the greatest amongst you is your servant, that is it is modelled on the heavenly and spiritual realm. Of the worldly temple that today's institution represents the head figure and hierarchy are not harmonised by the motto of Jesus's church that the greatest amongst you is your servant, so in this regard this model is not what Jesus intended his Ekklesia/discipleship to be at all. Go back to Jesus's statement to the samiratan women at the well and scrutinise whether your relgious institution is built up on the Old Testament model or the New Testament model.

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Rick Otto]

In other words, you prefer myths and biased anti-catholic slander instead of the truth. It doesn't sound like it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with you.

Until you achieve rationality, it won't be.

 

[Berean777]

Actually, there was nothing wrong with Temple worship, what was wrong was the Pharisaical heart of letter of the law versus spirit of the law. Jesus never abandoned His Father's house.

Everything was wrong with the temple worship, because it did nothing to bring people closer to God, it reinforced a relgious authority more so than the authority of God. We see how Jesus let loose words on the Pharisees from the first to the last of the institution, he blamed them for he deaths of Abel right through to Zechariah. On the basis of this charge Jesus had condemned the Pharisical church system in its entirety. He said look your house is left onto you desolate.

When Jesus refered to Daniel about the abomination of desolation setup in the Holy Place, he meant that something that doesn't bring salvation but desolation will be setup all over again. So this could only be linked in context to his words....

Look, your house is left to you desolate. (Mathew 23:38)

Note the chronology from Mathew 23 where he divorces himself from the Pharisical relgious authority and then walks out of the temple and then prophesies against them, by saying.....

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2)

70AD..... Destruction of Jerusalem is Jesus's prophesy fulfilled

Then you have the famous lines in context to the desolated Pharisical house being setup all over again by a different management......

14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains (Matthew 24:14-16)

Notice the different management after the events of 70AD is another relgious authority being setup all over again and in vast contrast to the Pharisical institution. This institution in John's Revelation is said to be the second beast who emerges, who has two horns and is lamb/Christ like, but practices the same authority as the first religious beast institution that went down in flames in 70AD. So this new revamped religious institution is Christ/lamb like meaning it has a Christian spin to it and it it gives life to the first religious beast institution and speaks like the same persecuting dragon authority of Pharisees. This religious institution has two horns, meaning it is both relgious and political and Rome must be its political arm.

So the only conclusion that I can make is that if an institution existed that was not endorsed nor shown to be preeminent in John's writings and is however cryptically described by John, whilst John is on the island of Patmos under the captivity of the second beast that has its roots in Rome.

Since there is not a mention of a preeminent figure to John and that no other church outside of the seven that were written to were mentioned as to a religious authority in Rome, then we can safely say that whatever religious institution that was setup in Rome that was working politically with the Roman authority, was a plagiarised religious institution that Jesus prophesied would be established as the abomination that maketh desolate, after the events of 70AD.

 

[Rick Otto]

Did Christ put all his eggs in the one basket and say you are the relgious institution that I will place all my sheep in?

You correctly said Christ Jesus is perfect and sinless, so a outward worldly religious institution with hierarchy of a perishable and transferrable Chief Priesthood Office IS NOT a reflection of Christ's sinlessness or perfection, that is as you correctly stated "they being human, have sin all through them".

in this regard Christ Jesus would not put all his eggs in an outward worldly relgious institution of any sort. Please listen to where this reasoning is heading........

Jesus made it abundantly clear where the Pharisees or THE religious institution of the entire Old Testament times stood as far as his righteousness is concerned. So many times Jesus would let the relgious institution have it in ways that you and I could not even imagine. A relgious institution that had Abraham as the Patrairch and here is the Lord completely and utterly divorcing himself from it.

Question....why do you think that Jesus would re-institute another religious institution modelled after the Old Testament institution, after he proclaimed such an institution as a desolation?

It would be in error to think that Jesus would establish another worldly temple centred relgious institution like the Old Testament, especially when he made it so crystal clear when he declared his church to the Samaritan women at the well....

I believe there is a huge misunderstanding that people like yourself are having and are having difficulty grappling with the completely different faith movement that Jesus had established. Jesus was NOT instructing his disciples to build another outward temple centred relgious institution as a counterpart to the Old Testament relgious institution, rather he was instructing them towards self discovering an inward modelled temple, that is not conceived by bricks and mortar or a hierarchy as per his say, that the greatest amongst you is your servant, that is it is modelled on the heavenly and spiritual realm. Of the worldly temple that today's institution represents the head figure and hierarchy are not harmonised by the motto of Jesus's church that the greatest amongst you is your servant, so in this regard this model is not what Jesus intended his Ekklesia/discipleship to be at all. Go back to Jesus's statement to the samiratan women at the well and scrutinise whether your relgious institution is built up on the Old Testament model or the New Testament model.

Exactly. He called them "brooding wipers"... I think we all know how to translate that into 21st century slang.
Annie Besant called this global satanic government "the externalization of the hierarchy".
I've had enough hierarchy, thank you.

 

[Rick Otto]

Everything was wrong with the temple worship, because it did nothing to bring people closer to God, it reinforced a relgious authority more so than the authority of God. We see how Jesus let loose words on the Pharisees from the first to the last of the institution,me here he blamed them for he deaths of Abel right through to Zechariah. On the basis of this charge Jesus had condemned the entire Pharisical church system in its entirety. He said look your Howie is left onto you desolate.g

When Jesus refered to Daniel about the abomination of desolation setup in the Holy Place, he meant that something that doesn't bring salvation but desolation will be setup all over again. So this could only be linked in context to his words....

For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (Mathew 23:38)

Note the chronology from Mathew 23 where he divorces himself from the Pharisical relgious authority and then walks out of the temple and then prophesies against them, by saying.....

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2)

70AD..... Destruction of Jerusalem is Jesus's prophesy fulfilled

Then you have the famous lines in context to the desolated Pharisical house being setup all over again by a different management......

14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains (Matthew 24:14-16)

Notice the different management after the events of 70AD is another relgious authority being setup all over again, in vast contrast to the Pharisical institution. This institution in John's Revelation is said to be the second beast who emerges, who has two horns and is lamb/Christ like, but practicesthe same authority as the first religious besst institution that went down in flames in 70AD. So this new revamped religious institution is Christ/lamb like meaning it has a Christian spin to it and it it gives life to the first relgious beast institution and speaks like the same persecuting dragon authority of Pharisees. This religious institution has two horns, meaning it is both relgious and political and Rome must be its political arm.

So the only conclusion that I can make is that if an institution existed that was not endorsed nor shown to be preeminent to John's writings and is however cryptically described whilst John is on the island of Patmos under the captivity of the second beast that has its roots in Rome.

Since Clement 1 is not mentioned as a preeminent figure to John and that no other church outside of the seven that were written to were mentioned as to a relgious authority in Rome, then we can safely say that whatever religious institution that was setup in Rome as working politically with the Roman authority and it was a plagiarised religious institution that Jesus prophesied would be established as the abomination that maketh desolate, after the events of 70AD.

Church married to State.
Constantine so believed that the physical act of baptism washed away sins, he waited until on his death bed to get baptized so he would be clean at death.
smh