Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Of course it isn't or God would not have added to the revealed Word of God through Apostolic tradition and subsequent revelation.
Here we have it folks, in black and white..... Catholics believe that God's Word isn't enough.
Funny, the apostles seemed to think differently.....2 Timothy 3:16 7 17/b> All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
That takes chutzpah.
..but you don’t HAVE a point, in scripture. That’s what we are showing you..
Does Jesus ever refer to "it" (rock) as Simon?
Why or why not?
Before I click on to your ‘link’, is it from scripture? Because if it’s not, you’re wasting my time. And yours.
I, too, pity their emptiness and the shackles they seem to think bind Catholics but which in reality bind them.
Catholicism is freedom from the mundane minutiae of picking apart every verse searching for that which justifies the onerous burden of dissent and dissatisfaction.
Catholicism is freedom from the persistent erosion of the rock done by the constant drip of heresy.
I just had the good fortune to visit Niagra Falls. What a bounteous display of the glory of God. I learned that Niagra Falls has moved over the years because of erosion and that the erosion is caused by the fact that the rocky make up at the top is solid, but the rocky make up of the bottom is soft. As the water flows over it, the cracks in the top rock have cause them to break away and tumble down into the water where they are crushed by the force of the water or eroded over time.
Somewhat like Protestantism.
Catholicism however, has the solid rock as its foundation so that when the softer rock is worn away, or crushed under the avalanche, it doesn’t move, but remains the same.
16But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. 17Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. "Tell James and the brothers about this," he said, and then he left for another place.What exactly do you use sola interpretura to interpret in that? Peter was in Jerusalem, the see of Bishop James (i.e. James was responsible for what's going on in Jerusalem). Peter escapes, thanks to the Lord. Peter then says "Tell James and the brothers about this" --> duuuuuuh
13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. <14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16" 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'[b] 18that have been known for ages.[c] 19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." Nice -- this is where James echoes what Peter says in Acts 15: 7 to 12:
7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.duuuhhh naturally again -- JAmes is in charge of Jerusalem. When Paul comes to Jerusalem he needs to pay his respects to the guy in charge IN JERUSALEM, namely James. When the President comes to San Fran, he pays his respects to the Mayor.
You should also point out to your friend that Acts 15 disproves the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures).
Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive SinsJohn 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
John 20:22 - the Lord “breathes” on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord “breathes” divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.
John 20:23 - Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to “men.” Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles’ successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?
Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the “Son of man” has authority to forgive sins on earth.
Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus’ authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.
Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church.
John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ's ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an “indulgence”).
2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as “in persona Christi”). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins.
2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.
James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man's authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church.
1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.
Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.
II. The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins
James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.
Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.
Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).
1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses.
1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another.
Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.
2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).
Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.
Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.
Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly.
1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.
Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved)
Words not posted by a Catholic and deceptively posted here as if they were.
As for the words in Timothy. No Catholic disputes that all of Scripture is inspired of God and contains all that is needed to know of Jesus and of His saving sacrifice.
Matthew 16:18And I tell you that you are Kepha/Petros/Petra/Rock/Peter,[c] and on this kepha/petra/rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven
Show me where I or any other Catholic ever said that. (I have pointed out the concept of bearing false witness, though). What I said was that Scripture doesn't contain 100% of the revealed Word of God. Do I need to use smaller words to get that point across?
James is NOT referred to as Bishop. That is your wording, not God's Word. Or your Church's wording to be exact.
Just what IS your point of Acts 15: 13-21? So now you are saying that James was INDEED in charge of the Council of Jerusalem? And Peter..what...?? Tell me again what you think Peter did at that council? Was he in charge? Did the other apostles give him the final say? Did they believe he was the Pope? And in charge of them all? What are saying?? I'm really trying to follow you. And I will listen, very closely, if you will tell me just what you think transpired there.
Peter's (Mathew) confession of faith came at a later time.
Next you'll be saying that there is no proof in scripture for the Trinity.
Not worthy of a response. First, prove that Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter for the first time as recorded in Matthew 16.
Well and beautifully said.
Perhaps you have earned enough ‘indulgences’ that He will overlook your levity..;)
The post is copied from the posts you didn’t read, the posts in which you have scripture quoted to you.
Well perhaps you don't trust God as we do...
God says to send the word out and it will not come back void...He also says we plant and water but He'll provide the increase...
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
I'm thinking Lurkers, even Catholics won't have too much trouble understanding these verses...
We don't use the bible as an inkblot...We spread the word as Jesus instructed his disciples...It's the Catholics who post links to reams and reams of pages written 'about' scripture, pages with written claims that the Catholic church is the only real church by relying on it's own rituals and superstitions which it calls Catholic tradition
We have no trouble at all posting God's written words and then committing the fruits of that endeavor to God...
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.