How Do Protestants Avoid This Scripture?

[P3chrmd]

[quote]Whose soever sins ye remit…
God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles; nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it; it is the mark of antichrist, to attempt anything of the kind; who, in so doing, usurps the divine prerogative, places himself in his seat, and shows himself as if he was God: but this is to be understood only in a doctrinal, or ministerial way, by preaching the full and free remission of sins, through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of God's grace, to such as repent of their sins, and believe in Christ; declaring, that all such persons as do so repent and believe, all their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake: and accordingly, [/quote]

This has to be the most uneducated analysis of any scripture I have ever read! I pitty anyone who buys this guy's commentary! I can see it now....

"This is my blood"....(commentary) Jesus can't really mean his true blood...did he cut himself and bleed in the cup...of course not!


Fundamentelists...You can't live with them...and you sure as hell CAN live without them!

[Quietfire]

[quote]I would like to clear something up about St. Thomas. According to many accounts he travelled to India and started Church's in that area. AS a matter of fact there is a rite called the Malabar Catholic Rite which i guess would be compared to how St. Andrew in the Ukraine. When St. Thomas brought the word to India communicatiosn between India and the West were soon lost afterwards however the Church continued to keep the traditions that were established by Thomas (no canocal bible only a few writtings really short of a full bible when Thomas went) so the whole Church relied on the Tradition brought by St. Thomas. During the Age of Exploration when Catholics in Europe arrived in India they were suprised to find a Christian Catholic Church that was virtually the same in belief as the one in Europe regarding priests, Eucharist, and other Catholic Beliefs. So to this day the Malabar Rite is in full communion with Rome. So kind of an interesting story i am sure there are others that no more details then me but very fascinating. That a Church that was cut off from the "corruption" of the Catholic Church of the middle ages and pre then and post then was believing the same thing as that of the Church in Europe....fascintaing indeed.[/quote]

Crusader 4,
I read that somewhere, and I am sure it was here. Can someone find the thread or link or something. This IS fascinating.


Peace :peace:

[Quietfire]

Ok I found it.

Just do a search on 'Malabar', showing posts and you will see them. And Crusader 4, you were right.

Here's the amazing thing. All those years alone and they were still following the same teachings as the Church.

Refute that!!!

Some of the title threads...

Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church
Obedience or Faithfulness
Rites, Roman etc.
Christian Church of India
The 30,000 Prostestant church big lie
Inferior Rite


Peace :peace:

[amarkich]

Morph, that is not an "interpretation" or "commentary" on Scripture; it is actually [i]changing[/i] what Scripture says and calling it an "interpretation", but I suppose you are accustomed to such theological nonsense as is the norm for Protestants.

[William Putnam]

[quote name='Archbishop 10-K' date='Jun 27 2004, 07:32 PM']Of course, "for the Apostles only" makes no logical sense, just like the primacy of Peter being "for Peter only." Authority in the Scriptures has, to my knowledge, always involved successors. For example, the priesthood, including the high-priest, the kings, judges, all of these had successors. Why not the Apostles as well?[/quote]
And all we need to do is see the beginning of successors, most notably, Paul preparing Timothy for his role as a successor, a bishop but not an apostle!

The only real difference in the two is, Timothy is a successor only, the word "apostle" reserved for those who were personally selected by Christ Himself in his "charter clergy, " the first to run His new infant Church.

Interestingly, while many of the more spectacular special "charisma's" began to wane as the Church grew, not so those powers of the bishopric/priesthood. Peter could raise the dead to life, whereby others could not, yet the successors of Peter, the bishops of Rome, still had the powers given to the apostles insofar as the runing of the Church, especially the sacramental powers of forgiving the sins of sinful men and women, and changing the bread and wine into the body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Himself.

And we have the testimony of the early fathers who lived at the very edge of the end of the apostolic era to testify to that...

And even then, some of the successors had extraordinary special charismas of their own that testified to the faith...sometimes not manifest until after their death, usually a martyrdom.

St. Januarius comes to mind...

Often times it was even laypersons...

The late contempory Therese Neumann comes to mind...

For what it was worth.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


[i]I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.[/i]

- [b]The Apostles Creed[/b] -

[MorphRC]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Jun 29 2004, 07:06 AM'] Morph, that is not an "interpretation" or "commentary" on Scripture; it is actually [i]changing[/i] what Scripture says and calling it an "interpretation", but I suppose you are accustomed to such theological nonsense as is the norm for Protestants. [/quote]
Are you having a go at me? or at the commentary only? I aint a Prot..like heck I would be...lol.

Maybe it would be better for dust or someone to put in nice big fat red letters 'Non-Christian' instead of Non-Catholic..even though Non-Catholic implies not being Christian..oy.

[MorphRC]

Well atleast their coming into use, for further apologetics.

[amarkich]

The attack was chiefly against the commentary; however, I was under the impression that you were a Protestant, that is why I worded the second half of my statement in that way. Were you not the one who was writing against the Muslims in a previous thread? Do you actually follow the way of the Samurai, Bushido? Further, do you believe in the Trinity? I seem to be confused slightly on your exact beliefs; perhaps you could explicate them here for me. God bless.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Jun 29 2004, 03:16 PM'] The attack was chiefly against the commentary; however, I was under the impression that you were a Protestant, that is why I worded the second half of my statement in that way. Were you not the one who was writing against the Muslims in a previous thread? Do you actually follow the way of the Samurai, Bushido? Further, do you believe in the Trinity? I seem to be confused slightly on your exact beliefs; perhaps you could explicate them here for me. God bless. [/quote]
Yeh Im the one that doesnt believe they worship the same god.
Not sure about the Bushido stuff, But Im studying it and practicing the physical side so far.
I believe the trinity to be historical, thats it.
I believe their is some 'higher being' if you will, that created everything, but whether its God in the jewish/christian sense Im dont know and confused about.

[P3chrmd]

[quote]Yeh Im the one that doesnt believe they worship the same god.
Not sure about the Bushido stuff, But Im studying it and practicing the physical side so far.
I believe the trinity to be historical, thats it.
I believe their is some 'higher being' if you will, that created everything, but whether its God in the jewish/christian sense Im dont know and confused about.[/quote]

Thats cool Morph! I know alot of folks confused...I NEVER try to force any of my beliefes on them...but they see how happy I am in my faith...and some of them are starting to understand that hey...maybe there is something to this God stuff!

So I invited one to pray the first part of the rosary with me...just into the first decade! It was a neat shared time of prayer together...God is the one who has to do the "converting" of people...he just uses us as the tools...to show the people what his love can do for us!

Oh well...anyways...I'll be praying for you Morph...and hope that you find your way to God in whatever way works best for you! Cause I understand that God speeks to all of us in different ways...because he knows we are all different, learn different, and respond different!

God Bless

[MorphRC]

thx

[Guest JeffCR07]

i'll be praying too! I know we tend to argue a bunch on these boards, but you should know that I really am praying for you, and I count you among my friends

[MorphRC]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2004, 11:01 PM'] i'll be praying too! I know we tend to argue a bunch on these boards, but you should know that I really am praying for you, and I count you among my friends [/quote]
Feels weird, I dont even have this much support off-line..lol

Thx

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='Jun 27 2004, 03:48 PM']
The problem is, as a protestant is it is quite easy to take verses out of their context in order to apply them directly as authority in your life. So, my understanding of that verse when I was a protestant was that I had to forgive people who had hurt me....and that kind of fitted into other bible verses I read!

Of course I had no idea about the amazing Sacrament of Penance at the time, which I now know is utterly incredible and liberating! [/quote]
I think the emphasis placed on confession varies from one Protestant denomination to another. I was raised understanding this verse to mean that, when you sinned, you were to confess it to God and to the person affected by your sin. I think that's on the right track (confessing to God and everything), and I think the Catholic view makes the most of that in the sacrament of Penance, so maybe it's the fullness of confession. I'm not wording it right, so I hope this makes a little bit of sense.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='shinobininjasp' date='Jun 29 2004, 12:20 PM'] I think the emphasis placed on confession varies from one Protestant denomination to another. I was raised understanding this verse to mean that, when you sinned, you were to confess it to God and to the person affected by your sin.  I think that's on the right track (confessing to God and everything), and I think the Catholic view makes the most of that in the sacrament of Penance, so maybe it's the fullness of confession. I'm not wording it right, so I hope this makes a little bit of sense. [/quote]
So you looked at it as kind of a "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" thing? or more like "go to your brother and settle your argument before worshipping" (extreme paraphrase there...)?

Edited June 29, 2004 by p0lar_bear

[j_calvin]

[quote name='P3chrmd' date='Jun 27 2004, 03:28 AM'] How do protestants explain this line in John!? I mean come on can it be spelled out any easier by Our Lord...CONFESSION! IT WORKS!!!!

[b]John 21-23[/b]

[i]and he said to them again, Peace be with you.

'As the Father sent me,
so am I sending you.'

After saying this he breathed on them and said:

Receive the Holy Spirit.
If you forgive anyone's sins,
they are forgiven;
if you retain anyone's sins,
they are retained.

[New Jerusalem Bible][/i] [/quote]
This is how I would answer it, quoting of course my brother John Calvin,

... that this right was granted to the Apostles, in order to maintain the credit of the Gospel, which they had been commissioned to preach. For Christ does not here appoint confessors, to inquire minutely into each sin by means of low mutterings, but preachers of his Gospel, who shall cause their voice to be heard, and who shall seal on the hearts of believers the grace of the atonement obtained through Christ. We ought, therefore, to keep by the manner of forgiving sins, so as to know what is that power which has been granted to the apostles.

Christ adds this second clause, in order to terrify the despisers of his Gospel, that they may know that they will not escape punishment for this pride. As the embassy of salvation and of eternal life has been committed to the apostles, so, on the other hand, they have been armed with vengeance against all the ungodly, who reject the salvation offered to them, as Paul teaches, (2 Corinthians 10:6.) But this is placed last in order, because it was proper that the true and real design of preaching the Gospel should be first exhibited. That we are reconciled to God belongs to the nature of the Gospel; that believers are ad-judged to eternal life may be said to be accidentally connected with it. For this reason, Paul, in the passage which I lately quoted, when he threatens vengeance against unbelievers, immediately adds, after that your obedience shall have been fulfilled, (2 Corinthians 10:6;) for he means, that it belongs peculiarly to the Gospel to invite all to salvation, but that it is accidental to it that it brings destruction to any. It ought to be observed, however, that every one who hears the voice of the Gospel, if he do not embrace the forgiveness of sins which is there promised to him, is liable to eternal damnation; for, as it is a living savior to the children of God, so to those who perish it is the savour of death to (2 Corinthians 2:16.) Not that the preaching of the Gospel is necessary for condemning the reprobate, for by nature we are all lost, and, in addition to the hereditary curse, every one draws down on himself additional causes of death, but because the obstinacy of those who knowingly and willingly despise the Son of God deserves much severer punishment.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Except that Calvin believed in Double Predestination (that you are positively saved or condemed from before your birth). If He is right about Double Predestination, he is wrong about the Apostles [quote]cause(ing) their voice to be heard, and who shall seal on the hearts of believers the grace of the atonement obtained through Christ.[/quote]

By the Calvinist theory of Double Predestination, the actions of those here on earth, whether Apostle or not, cannot impact an individual's salvation.

His later doctrine of Double Predestination contradicts this earlier quote.

[j_calvin]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2004, 04:53 PM'] Except that Calvin believed in Double Predestination (that you are positively saved or condemed from before your birth). If He is right about Double Predestination, he is wrong about the Apostles

By the Calvinist theory of Double Predestination, the actions of those here on earth, whether Apostle or not, cannot impact an individual's salvation.

His later doctrine of Double Predestination contradicts this earlier quote. [/quote]
In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners? already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us."2 Luther continued:
When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.2
Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

[Mary's Knight, La]

I have a small problem with saying God chose you so He's going to work to save you to person A and to person B uhmmm sorry I know the bible says God desires all men's salvation but... apparantly He doesn't desire yours enough to work to save you...

most non-catholics accuse catholics of limiting Jesus' sacrifice but here you appear to limit it, is His sacrifice infinite and accessible to all men or is it somehow only enough for a certain number.

For it to be that way God must, rather than be a loving father, be an arbirtrary creator who at a whim tosses His precious creation into the flames to be destroyed.

Problem two is that your statements destroy God's omnipotence, no more is it that God brings goodness out of nothing or that where sin is grace abounds all the more but that our own evil limits God's power. How does that co-exist with His omnipotence?

Edited June 29, 2004 by Mary's Knight, La

[j_calvin]

[quote name='Mary's Knight, La' date='Jun 29 2004, 06:16 PM'] I have a small problem with saying God chose you so He's going to work to save you to person A and to person B uhmmm sorry I know the bible says God desires all men's salvation but... apparantly He doesn't desire yours enough to work to save you...


For it to be that way God must, rather than be a loving father, be an arbirtrary creator who at a whim tosses His precious creation into the flames to be destroyed.

Problem two is that your statements destroy God's omnipotence, no more is it that God brings goodness out of nothing or that where sin is grace abounds all the more but that our own evil limits God's power. How does that co-exist with His omnipotence? [/quote]
It is man's choice if he doesn't want to be saved. If he becomes presumptious and feels that his sin is above God his heart will harden and God will know that is what he will do. God knows all that is the essence of his omnipotence. God knows person A who will accept his terms of salavation by Christ's death and attonement and he knows that person B will refuse it.

God must through His perfect justice throw men into the pits of satan due to their insolence and presumption by their thinking since they belong to a church that automatically they are saved.

I know some Catholics that think that since they belong to the Catholic Church that they are saved and can continue in their sin. The church sexual scandal was good for the Catholic Church for out of evil God brings forth fruit of repentance. I hope all of you Catholics are heeding His warning. I got it!

Peace,

Rick