Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Paul says over and over again, "By no means" shall we go back to our old lives. We must persevere. But I don't take perseverance to mean perfection as you appear to do. I wonder why Paul doesn't back up any of these types of passages with "so run to your priest after any one of these sins or you are lost". Again you make the perfect case for ping-pong justification. Saved one day, lost the next. You appear to say that God doesn't give anything for keeps. He just loans us grace that we must earn through our future deeds to keep. In your example from Galatians, you have Paul damning anyone who ever experiences hate, or anyone who has a few drinks too many now and again. If someone rapes and murders my loved one, and I feel hate, then I have just damned my soul to hell. After justification, it's damnation to them all, UNLESS ... well, Paul never tells us around these passages.
FK: "This passage says NOTHING about running to a priest for forgiveness. THAT is the literal interpretation of 9-10."
Big deal. It doesn't say that Jesus rose from the dead in this passage, either. What is your point?
I just mean that if Paul really is advocating ping-pong salvation, he seems to only give the "ping" side and never the "pong". If that's true, I find that odd.
WHY? If God has already predestined you for election, what is the purpose of Baptism - per your theology? Obedience to God? Would this remove you from the elect, then?
Yes, Baptism is an obedience to God. Jesus tells us to be Baptized, and a regenerated heart wants to obey. But if someone is truly of the elect, then nothing can cost him his salvation, not even the failure to be Baptized. None of us are perfectly obedient to God.
And if you got that money through ill-repute, would the situation be the same? I CAN refuse this money. People do it all the time.
But your added circumstances take it out of an analogy to heaven (something very good). All you do is kill the analogy, you don't address the issue. God's "offer" is nothing like a tainted $1,000,000 :)
There are historical records to show all manner of practices in ancient times that were false, but were accepted by the practitioners at the time. Popularity doesn't make something right. Besides, who within the Church was ever in a position to refute it. You can't even refute it to this day, or you will be ex-communicated. That certainly does solve that problem and preserve unity, but it adds nothing to the strength of any argument. "We're right because everyone agreed" (under threat of being kicked out and eternally damned).
As usual, my evidence comes from the Bible. Every Baptism I am aware of in the Bible was that of a believer. You are forced to throw in a bunch of "what ifs" and "maybes", just to suggest your view is possible. I am content with what the Bible actually says.
Thus, you base the idea "the Scriptures are from God" with the same logic that Joseph Smith claims that the Mormon Scriptures are from God.
Wow! Then that must mean that the scriptures don't speak to you on any kind of a personal level at all. They must be merely words on a page to you. You read them, consult the Church, and they tell you what to think about them. Nothing more. It's nothing like that for me.
So your claim is that the Church is wrong in everything it says and God protected "His" book from the errors of this same Church?!
I don't think the Church is wrong in everything, just those things in which it disagrees with the Bible.
Without the witness of the Church, how do you know that the Gospel of Thomas is NOT Scripture?
I don't think the Church had anything to do with the writing of the Bible, therefore I do not need its witness.
We rely COMPLETELY on the Church to tell us what is God's Word, because God doesn't come down from heaven and tell all mankind "This is my book. Listen to it"
You rely on the Church because you are forced to if you want to be a Catholic. That is fine. I rely on God Himself because I am not so forced. You have already been shown why we can know that the Bible is God's word from within the Bible itself, and you disagree. OK.
It shouldn't be surprising that infants would be baptised IF infants were circumcised.
I'm sure it is likely that it did happen, my disagreement is with its meaning. Certainly most or all of the early churches practiced some sort of error, at least in the beginning. They were still getting the hang of this brand new thing. (No shame on them from me for innocent mistakes.) Isn't that why Paul wrote many of his letters, to guide them and correct error? And yes, I will be up front and say that I am unaware of anything in the Bible that specifically prohibits infant Baptism by name. I just take inference from what is there.
How could it be a "local" council if the decisions were applied universally? Circumcision was no longer required. Anywhere. Most scholars see two decisions and separate councils in Acts 15. The first is the circumcision question, a universal decision, led by Peter. The second is the dietary decision, a local decision led by James. Paul did not follow this latter decision in some of his communities, for example, in Corinth, or when he writes to Rome.
I looked at it again, and I don't see how it could possibly have been two councils. The decision of James is clear enough, but I couldn't find one for Peter. Also what do you say about how verses 4 and 12 work together? Verse 4 is before Peter spoke, and verse 12 happened immediately before James spoke. That tells me that it was one council.
LOL!!! There's at least one other person to notice this. ;O)
As I do now: with reverence, as I view any other Bishop, but someone with special honor among them. ...
Thank you for your answer.
Agrarian: "Every young person who brings home someone from college definitely knows that their girlfriend or boyfriend has not only to pass the family test, but also the church family test... "
It sounds like it's pretty serious business that a potential mate be of the same faith. It is to us also, and we would frame it in terms of the person being a Christian. Is that how you view it, or must the person be an Orthodox Christian?
In regard to the human nature vd humanity, the first Adam suffered the fall from his sin and the consequences were also passed genetically to all seed of the first Adam. Of special note is the second Adam, also human and pure, qualified to become the perfect sacrifice in response to the sin of man.
All humans since the 1st Adam other than the second Adam have been composed therefore with a fallen nature, an old sin nature, a natural man, that touches upon both the body and the soul, with a spirit that requires regeneration prior to being alive.
We therefore stand condemned before we have ever been saved, in regards to our thinking and our bodies.
We are not striving to become "super men" but simply to be retored what our intended and created nature was and can be one day.
To be married in the Orthodox Church, both have to be Orthodox Christians.
What is my opinion of the Bible, FK? You probably mean the Old Testament, which says (Exodus 21:24) "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot..."
as opposed to the New Testament, which says (Matthew 5:38-39) "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Well, if your opinion is that there were mistakes in the OT, then you cannot believe the Bible is infallible, by definition. Who was the speaker in your first example from Exodus? Wasn't it GOD!? Are you saying that Moses wrote the wrong words down, or that God needed a mulligan on that one? What you would call a correction (of error), I would call a completion. Do you say that "fulfill" means to correct error in the OT?
By claiming that Jonah repented you have violated Canon 6. As Augustine, the Canon of Orange, and the scriptures point out, there is not anything that we have that we have not been given. This includes our faith and our will. The only reason we are obedient and humble (more or less) is because of God's grace. Jonah was obedient only because of God.
LOL!!! Sure it does. Where does Scripture say that only written teachings are to be followed by Christians? Where does Scripture talk about abrogating all oral traditions? Where does Scripture talk about a Christian community breaking up into smaller groups due to dissension - as a GOOD thing? Where does the Scripture talk about salvation by faith alone? And so forth...
It is "plain" to you because it must agree
The Church accepted the revelation received from the Apostles - BOTH oral and written revelations. From within this revealed context, we have taken our paradigm. We didn't receive a book and were told to figure it out for ourselves. We received a body of teachings, the book supplementing and providing evidence for that body of teachings.
Yes, I am still unhappy about Romans 3, because I think this concoction is just a required effort to give an "out" for Mary.
I am not talking about Mary in Romans 3. I am talking about "all men are evil - no one can choose good". Utterly ridiculous and against Scripture, as I have posted. If you can't understand the verses that I posted in Psalm 14 and Romans 3 - and compare them to Psalm 119 - and notice that YOUR meaning would have Scripture completely contradict itself - I don't know what to tell you... IF "all men are evil, no one comes to God", then explain away Psalm 119 and many other Scriptures that talk about men seeking God, about men being righteous. Or does God's Word contradict? Plainly speaking, Romans 3 CANNOT mean that ALL men are evil, no one seeks God.
The Psalmist is talking about fools, Paul is talking about all men
Wrong. They are using the exact same words! Paul is QUOTING Scriptures verbatim. To understand Paul, you have to understand what he is quoting, not what you try to read into the Scriptures to fit your theology. If you want to understand Scriptures, you have to approach it with a more open mind.
The Jews never said there is no God
They sure did!!!! WHO do you think David was talking about? Gentiles? NO! He was speaking about foolish Jews who in their heart were wicked and evil - who in their hearts did not believe in God - despite what their fathers taught them. He was writings against JEWS! Why in God's name do you think so many Jews often returned to idolatrous methods? Have you not read the Historical books of the OT? It was evil and apostate Jews who were the worst enemies of God's people. Over and over, these wicked Jews brought God's vengeance down on the people.
I maintain that these passages do not directly relate to each other.
They are DIRECT quotes of the Psalms. I imagine your bible even notes that... And if you were aware of what Paul is saying in Romans 1-4, it would be quite obvious that Paul is attacking Judaizers who were proud in their obedience to the Law. Doesn't it become obvious when Paul attacks circumcision - which Abraham was righteous before the ritual? That even Gentiles were "spiritual Jews" by "spiritual circumcision" (Rom 2)? If all men are evil, then Christ took on the nature of evil during the incarnation. Is that what you are saying?
See where you theology leads?
Regards
No, that's not what it means. It means that the Bible, as a whole, is infallible and that single verses are not necessarily the whole truth. Because if one verse leads you to think one way, there is usually another verse that modifies the first. Which is why the Bible needs to be understood in its entirety and not in erms of isolated verses.
What Jesus Christ said was not a "fulfillment" of the statement regarding taking revenege, but a correction of the statement, lest we be lead to believe that taking an eye for and eye is justified and what God wants us to do, as the Jews believe. If evil strikes, do not return evil for evil is what Christ is saying.
What you would call a correction (of error), I would call a completion
Certainly what He said was not a completion because the OT verse is complete. What Christ said was not an addition that completed it, but re-defined the whole meaning of it.
I don't either. Remember, we have Purgatory? However, our basic direction in life must be Christ. IF we do those sins of the flesh, we are given an Advocate who will forgive us of our sins. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is always available to those who choose (through God's Spirit) to return to the Lord's ways. The "unforgiveable sin" is the sin that man does not ask for the forgiveness of.
I wonder why Paul doesn't back up any of these types of passages with "so run to your priest after any one of these sins or you are lost".
I wonder why Paul never mentions the word "trinity", "altar call", "Sinner's Prayer", or "protestantism"....As I said before many times, all of Paul's thoughts and ideas are not written down in the Scriptures...They are letters that we happen to have, preserved by the Church.
Again you make the perfect case for ping-pong justification. Saved one day, lost the next.
Sorry you disapprove of Scriptures. But your "saved one day, lost the next" is clearly an exaggeration.
If someone rapes and murders my loved one, and I feel hate, then I have just damned my soul to hell. After justification, it's damnation to them all, UNLESS ... well, Paul never tells us around these passages.
You have heard of the idea of repentance?
I just mean that if Paul really is advocating ping-pong salvation, he seems to only give the "ping" side and never the "pong". If that's true, I find that odd.
Paul talks about reconciliation, for example, in 2 Cor 5.
Jesus tells us to be Baptized, and a regenerated heart wants to obey. But if someone is truly of the elect, then nothing can cost him his salvation, not even the failure to be Baptized. None of us are perfectly obedient to God.
Baptism is given for the remission of sins. Thus, if you aren't baptized, your sins aren't forgiven. How does that make you of the elect, then?
God's "offer" is nothing like a tainted $1,000,000 :)
God's offer is not given to us with full and entire revelation. It is based on faith. You keep mentioning that "who would choose hell?" Indeed. No one. People choose a life without God. That is the same thing. Hell is an existence without God. Now whether that state means fire and brimstone, who can say? But clearly, people will choose a life without God and His ways. That is what people choose. Life without God's ways, God's Laws, God's Love. A person who willfully does this over the course of their life will not be saved, regardless of Baptism they received 20 years ago.
Regards
I don't either. Remember, we have Purgatory? However, our basic direction in life must be Christ. IF we do those sins of the flesh, we are given an Advocate who will forgive us of our sins. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is always available to those who choose (through God's Spirit) to return to the Lord's ways. The "unforgiveable sin" is the sin that man does not ask for the forgiveness of.
I wonder why Paul doesn't back up any of these types of passages with "so run to your priest after any one of these sins or you are lost".
I wonder why Paul never mentions the word "trinity", "altar call", "Sinner's Prayer", or "protestantism"....As I said before many times, all of Paul's thoughts and ideas are not written down in the Scriptures...They are letters that we happen to have, preserved by the Church.
Again you make the perfect case for ping-pong justification. Saved one day, lost the next.
Sorry you disapprove of Scriptures. But your "saved one day, lost the next" is clearly an exaggeration.
If someone rapes and murders my loved one, and I feel hate, then I have just damned my soul to hell. After justification, it's damnation to them all, UNLESS ... well, Paul never tells us around these passages.
You have heard of the idea of repentance?
I just mean that if Paul really is advocating ping-pong salvation, he seems to only give the "ping" side and never the "pong". If that's true, I find that odd.
Paul talks about reconciliation, for example, in 2 Cor 5.
Jesus tells us to be Baptized, and a regenerated heart wants to obey. But if someone is truly of the elect, then nothing can cost him his salvation, not even the failure to be Baptized. None of us are perfectly obedient to God.
Baptism is given for the remission of sins. Thus, if you aren't baptized, your sins aren't forgiven. How does that make you of the elect, then?
God's "offer" is nothing like a tainted $1,000,000 :)
God's offer is not given to us with full and entire revelation. It is based on faith. You keep mentioning that "who would choose hell?" Indeed. No one. People choose a life without God. That is the same thing. Hell is an existence without God. Now whether that state means fire and brimstone, who can say? But clearly, people will choose a life without God and His ways. That is what people choose. Life without God's ways, God's Laws, God's Love. A person who willfully does this over the course of their life will not be saved, regardless of Baptism they received 20 years ago.
Regards
Apophatic knowledge reveals to us what God is by asserting what God is not. We therefore know positively that God is not evil, changing, with a beginning and with an end, created, etc. because we know that God is eternal, uncircumscribed, inaffable, transcendental, etc.
We do know God positively through Christ. The East does not deny that, and never did. I am not sure what is your point in the whole post.
Give me an example. And I'll show you that the Church condemned such practices in each case. Where does the Church condemn infant baptism?
Besides, who within the Church was ever in a position to refute it. You can't even refute it to this day, or you will be ex-communicated
Infant baptism wasn't declared infallibly dogmatic until the Council of Trent in the mid 1500's. Certainly during the first few hundred years, you'd think ONE PERSON would write about its incorrect usage in the Church??? Many bishops were in the "position" to question this or any other teaching of the Apostles. The Church constantly is fighting against such people. That is odd that you make this statement.
"We're right because everyone agreed" (under threat of being kicked out and eternally damned).
That is a woeful understanding of the development of dogma. There is a period of time before something is considered infallibly dogmatic where theologians of good will can offer understandings that may not match the future's dogmatic declaration. Contemporary theologians would then have chimed in to refute such a person - but NOT excommunicate! People are given numerous opportunities to recant of false teachings before excommunication occurs. The point is that we'd have records of such initial disagreements - even if a person subsequently recanted (such as Berengar and the Eucharist in the 1000's). Infant baptism is clearly a unanimously held teaching until people began the Sola Scriptura idea in the 1500's.
I am content with what the Bible actually says.
The Bible never says that baptism is only for believers, and secondly, we don't know EVERY person who was baptised in the Bible was of rational age. And finally, you are under the misguided presumption that "only what is in the Bible is to be believed by Christians" - an anti-Scriptural concept. Once you get beyond this false tradition of men, things will fall into place better regarding your understanding of historical Christianity.
Wow! Then that must mean that the scriptures don't speak to you on any kind of a personal level at all.
Lots of books "speak" to me. That is the purpose of a writer in most cases! Does that make Shakespeare was inspired by God?
I don't think the Church is wrong in everything, just those things in which it disagrees with the Bible.
You mean YOUR understanding of the bible. It is clear that your understanding is not the only way one can read Scriptures.
I don't think the Church had anything to do with the writing of the Bible, therefore I do not need its witness.
LOL! Prove to me, without the Church, that what you have is ONLY God's Word, and nothing more, and ALL God's Word is included within its pages... Yours is the most ridiculous statement I have heard. Without the witness of the Church, you would think that Jesus was married and had kids. That is what other "gospels" say? Would you then be an advocate of the Da Vinci Code?!
I rely on God Himself because I am not so forced.
Right. God speaks directly to you in a vision... "If even an angel of light teaches a gospel other than mine, let him be anathema". Your Gospel is not the same as the Church, so what does that say about your "vision"?
You have already been shown why we can know that the Bible is God's word from within the Bible itself, and you disagree. OK.
You haven't shown me anything but your assertions that it is so. Merely saying "Philemon is God's Word" doesn't mean anything without the Church's witness to this fact. When if I was to say I thought God was telling me that the Gospel of Thomas is from God? You'd think I was wrong, wouldn't you? Why??? Explain yourself.
Isn't that why Paul wrote many of his letters, to guide them and correct error? And yes, I will be up front and say that I am unaware of anything in the Bible that specifically prohibits infant Baptism by name. I just take inference from what is there
So where is the correction against this incorrect practice of infant baptism? We don't find it anywhere! Wow...
Regards
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace
I wrote in post #3732 : I agree, God brought Jonah to repentance - but as St. Augustine says - NOT without man!
You responded: By claiming that Jonah repented you have violated Canon 6
Nonsense. Can't you read? I wrote "God brought Jonah to repentance - and then add - NOT WITHOUT man. How does this violate Canon 6? I never have said, in all of these 1000's of posts, that we can come to do anything without God. Frankly, I tire of your accusations and inability to discern simple posts. You presume that Catholics believe we come to God by ourselves, when I have time and again refuted that notion. Give it a rest, already.
Regards
Blessed [are] they that keep his testimonies, [and that] seek him with the whole heart. They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways. Psalms 119:2-3
With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. Ps 119:10
There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. Romans 3:10-11
It should be painfully obvious that your theology contradicts the Scriptures found in many Psalms, such as Psalm 119.
May patience be with you. However, you still haven't shown me any contradictions. Whoever the Psalmist was, it's a safe bet that he was already a man of faith. I'm sure he was talking about other men of faith because who could follow in His ways without faith? Paul, of course, was not talking about such men at all. Verse 9 is clear that he is saying that Jews and Gentiles are alike in sin. That must mean before salvation, because after salvation we are no longer slaves to sin, as Paul clearly lays out. Therefore, there is no contradiction, Paul and the Psalmist are talking about different people.
Men DO seek out God. But according to you, NO MEN seek God - since you take the literal and universal definition of "all".
Of course some men seek God. They are the ones who have been blessed with the grace to do so. Paul wasn't talking about them. He was talking about those who are still under the sin nature. That must be so because it is clear that Paul himself believed that he sought after God, right? That is clear to me. However, there is no such obvious explanation for Romans 3:23. In fact, if you wanted to narrow it down, you could look at verse 24, and conclude that Paul was only talking about all SAVED people, since he references their justification. That is even worse for Mary!
[On Ez 18:24:] Keep dreaming. I suppose since you have "x" amount of faith, (as ALL Protestants claim) you can declare yourself saved.
My version of that verse is a little different from yours. Instead of "trespass", mine says "unfaithfulness". Obviously a truly righteous man cannot be in nature unfaithful, therefore, the man must be self-righteous, or, this man was never saved to begin with.
Why would the Spirit intercede if all is done? How is His intercession the execution of God's promises?
Some promises are executed and completed immediately, other promises cannot be completed until a certain amount of time has passed. This is the latter. Jesus promised that He would send His elect the Spirit to look out for us always. Therefore, if one believes in God's promises, then it is safe to believe that the Spirit will not cut and run sometime during the life of the elect, after salvation.
FK: "All of God's elect will ask for forgiveness via God's grace."
Yes, but your theology's fatal assumption is "only the elect ask for God's forgiveness". Thus, those who recite the Sinner's Prayer are of the elect. It doesn't follow that asking once for forgiveness makes one of the elect. Hasn't Scripture told us that people DO fall away?
You are adding something to my theology that I never said. I said that all of the elect will ask for forgiveness via God's grace. All others who ask for forgiveness will do so without God's grace and it won't "count". As I have said before, just saying the sinner's prayer DOES NOT transform one into a member of the elect. The elect were predestined. All of the elect will say some equivalent of the sinner's prayer (i.e. come to Christ).
So now you are saying that the Apostles, by their own power, raised the dead??
No, I'm saying that God raised the dead, and the Apostles were witnesses.
Brother, are you familiar with the Lord's Prayer? ...AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US...
Sin is not only against God, but it is a disruption of our relationship with other people. If I were to murder someone's wife, doesn't that somehow effect my relationship with that woman's family???
I don't think you are understanding my point at all. Of course the Lord's prayer says that if someone harms us, we are to forgive them. And if you murdered someone's wife, you would have also harmed that person's family. However, I, who did not know the woman or her family, could NOT forgive YOU because I have no standing, or authority to do so. That's the difference. You didn't harm me, so how can I forgive you. It is the same with priests. Yes, you claim authority for them, and I disagree. But, there is no way you can argue independent standing.
You believe that love is something that is forced upon someone else. I suppose rape is a good example of love in your eyes. "Sure, the woman felt good afterwards, you know it was for her own good".
Well, that's mighty sweet of you there, Joe. Thank you.
Because I was not made perfect. I stand condemned already needing a Savior. The unrepentant gay who appeals to genetics as an excuse for his thinking and behavior has no more justification in his rebellion than any independent thinking I might exercise to perform human good, which in the eyes of the Lord will be judged as good for nothingness when judged by the holy standards of divine righteousness. We all have genetic foibles, removing ourselves from the category of righteous.
Really? I thought Paul was directly quoting the Psalms! The Bibles that I have looked at ALL refer to the appropriate Psalm verses that he quoted. Seems interesting that what Paul says at the very end of Romans 2 is then contradicted by saying ALL men sin!!! WHY does Paul talk about a Law written on the hearts of Gentiles - who are OBEYING IT!!! Whew...I don't know what else to tell you.
Therefore, there is no contradiction, Paul and the Psalmist are talking about different people.
Right. That is why Paul DIRECTLY quotes them. Romans 3 is Paul's LONGEST series of quotes directly from the OT, but you would have Paul mean them to be unrelated to their context??? What hoops Protestants must jump through to maintain "all men are evil"...
Of course some men seek God. They are the ones who have been blessed with the grace to do so.
But aren't they men? Are not men who have been blessed with grace to follow God STILL considered men????
In fact, if you wanted to narrow it down, you could look at verse 24, and conclude that Paul was only talking about all SAVED people, since he references their justification. That is even worse for Mary!
OF COURSE Paul is talking about "saved" righteous people! But you said ALL MEN are evil!!! Paul is not talking about all men and their particular nature, but evil, wicked men who refuse to turn to God. Some men DO NOT refuse to turn to God. Some are pagans who have the Law of God written on their hearts, for God's sake!!! They are spiritually circumcised, and are Jews by faith!
My version of that verse is a little different from yours. Instead of "trespass", mine says "unfaithfulness".
My version was the KJV. I am betting yours is the NIV, which is not a literal translation, but a dynamic one. Be wary of dynamic translations, because the editor's interpretations are part of the Scriptures. You are no longer reading God's Word, but someone else's interpretation of what God is saying...
Obviously a truly righteous man cannot be in nature unfaithful, therefore, the man must be self-righteous, or, this man was never saved to begin with.
I don't see that in the Scriptures. You are reading your theology into it.
Some promises are executed and completed immediately, other promises cannot be completed until a certain amount of time has passed. This is the latter. Jesus promised that He would send His elect the Spirit to look out for us
But that would be inconsistent to your theology. According to you, you are already saved. So what would the Spirit need to intercede for you for? You have made it clear that YOU think you can do nothing to lose your salvation!
I said that all of the elect will ask for forgiveness via God's grace. All others who ask for forgiveness will do so without God's grace and it won't "count".
LOL!!! Read that carefully. Those who ask for forgiveness of God WITHOUT God's grace????????? Does not the Bible and our conversations make it clear that men DO NOT SEEK OUT GOD WHO ARE EVIL OR WICKED??? ANYONE who seeks out God through repentance is drawn by God!!!! Men cannot come to God and repent without God. Now, you are telling me that men can repent to God by themselves? Make up your mind... This is a ridiculous theology. Come on.
All of the elect will say some equivalent of the sinner's prayer
Yes, but it doesn't follow that all who say the sinner's prayer will be ultimately saved for heaven. So how do you make the determination that you...Oh, forget it...
No, I'm saying that God raised the dead, and the Apostles were witnesses.
Funny, Scriptures mention Peter and Paul fulfilled a special role - more than just witnesses - during those actions. Seems that God's Power worked THROUGH those Apostles. They were more than just witnesses! Other people "witnessed" the miracle as well. Scripture gives Peter and Paul more credit than you.
It is the same with priests. Yes, you claim authority for them, and I disagree. But, there is no way you can argue independent standing.
I don't make any such claims. I am merely relating what the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth says - along with the Word of God. It says that Christ has given the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins. Pretty clear. Priests have authority to forgive sins - AND they do so not only by the power of God, but as representatives of the community - which sin is against.
Well, that's mighty sweet of you there, Joe. Thank you. {regarding you equating rape to love}
Sorry, a bit over the top. But isn't that what forcing love upon someone else is?
Regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.