From: MX%"didde@cyberport.com" 4-FEB-1997 To: MX%"nemo@ludens.elte.hu" Subj: Re: Sola Scriptura >:All power was designated to the Apostles: >:Mat 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven >:and on earth has been given to me. >:Mat 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing >:them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, >:Mat 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. >:And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." >What? All power was designated to Jesus Christ. If the apostles had >been given it then there would have been no need of Christ forever >staying with them - they, having His authority as a blank cheque in >the style of medieval popes claiming kiss on their feet, could have >neglected Christ altogether. Your popes indeed did so. :Of course He had to stay with them. None of us can do any good :without God. He designated them as His *visible* leaders on earth. And said them to be faithful. No blank cheque here. :What the medieval Popes did has nothing to do with doctrine. It is an arrant nonsense. They demanded a kiss (and taxes, etc) on the principle that "Upon this rock", and "Feed my sheep", and "Strengthen thy brethren", and "Which you bind on earth". Seems quite like doctrine to me. :The Catholic Church has never claimed that the Popes were not sinners. But she tended to overlook their sins because she thought they were first of all apostles and only after that Christians, to whom, as we know, excommunication is applicable in case of persistent sin. :Were the Apostles sinners? Men who were picked directly by Jesus to :spread His Word. They were. But when found in error (not even a gross sin) they willingly repented from it. See Gal 2. It was not characteristic of medieval popes. >:They had the power to forgive sins: [John 20:23] >By preaching (2Cor 2:14-17). :What do you mean by preaching? The verse you give has nothing :to do with this directive. 2Cor 2:12-17 "And having come to Troas for the good news of the Christ, and a door "to me having been opened in the Lord, Here is the reference to preaching, "I have not had rest to my spirit, on my not finding Titus my brother, "but having taken leave of them, I went forth to Macedonia; and to God "[are] thanks, who at all times is leading us in triumph in the Christ, "and the fragrance of His knowledge He is manifesting through us in every "place, Again a reference to the knowledge of Christ, "because of Christ a sweet fragrance we are to God, in those being "saved, and in those being lost; to the one, indeed, a fragrance of death "to death, and to the other, a fragrance of life to life; and for these "things who is sufficient? for we are not as the many, adulterating the "word of God, but as of sincerity -- but as of God; in the presence of "God, in Christ we do speak. First I burden you with a comment on "fragrance" from my RC Bible which follows the Jerusalem Bible: `2:15 `Proclaiming the gospel puts people before a choice for or against `God, so no man can look at them indifferently. `2:17 `A reference to the supernatural character of preaching. We speak of God `at Christ's prompting, with His gracious assistance. So choose whether you want to call the commentators of your denomination liars and false interpreters, or admit that I am right. By the way, fragrance is said to be spread among those who perish as well, but for them it is a deadly message. As most of the commentators remark, it may be a simile of triumphal processions of generals in the ancient Rome where the sweet fragrance of the incense was pleasant to the winners, breathing with glory and dignity; on the other hand, it was a message for the captured commander of the enemy that he would be ceremonially slaughtered. This bearing in mind, one may with good foundation argue that preaching actually forgives and retains sins (respectively for the believers and the hardened), opens and closes the doors of heaven, and in addition, it is practically infallible (considering that God Himself entrusted the (oral) gospel to the Church, in which all knowledge is contained about salvation), unlike "sacramental absolution" in which the "priest" has to apply a kind of pharisaic dis- cernment: how grave is this or that sin, how much penitence is required, is there the spirit of penance in the confessing one - without the sure testimony of the Word of God, he may very often bind those who are actu- ally to be loosed, and vice versa. So binding and loosing can be attrib- uted to preaching as well (one might even look at John 20:21 which links it with mission). >:The power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist): >:1 Cor 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, >:"This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." >:1 Cor 11:25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, >:"This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink >:it, in remembrance of me." >Roman Catholics have an extreme proneness of imagining that every >newsreader is provided with their built-in denominational eyeglasses, >through which those magic words that are printed in white can be read. >Now, where is here written that the Eucharist is a "sacrifice"? >And that they have to "offer" it? :Every newsreader thinks that "Bible study" means attack the Roman :Catholic Church. Quite doubtful. For example, RC's hardly fit this description. :You are doing just that. Then defend yourself. If you are right then obviously you can prove it. :You have not once wanted to discuss the Scripture but just attack the :Church. You are grievously mistaken. Although I have complaints about the present state of the Church, I am not at all attacking her. Whom I attack are certain individuals who are pathologically prone to preach themselves as Church, and restrict membership, salvation, and orthodoxy to some external visible masks (priesthood, appointed clergy etc) just as those in Jer 18:18 did. :I will send you a separate post on the Eucharist. It is too long for this. Thank you; so next time the above references to the Mass can be deleted from this file. >To save you the effort: Malachi 1:11 is not cogent. It refers to the >praises and thanks offered by Gentiles, echoed by Paul in Rom 15:16. >In the absence of your lucky glasses, I have to resort to my worn >Bible, saying "Christ died once for all", and "Christ obtained >eternal redemption through the offering of His body once for all". :Redemption is not salvation. Who said that? I am not a "once saved, forever saved" advocate. Although I believe in predestination, I don't dare to say that "I am saved" in the sense of "Despite any future sins, so let us sin boldly." :This "once for all" will be covered in the Eucharist post. And confuted in the answer. Thus far I have never had an opportunity to refute Sheed. Thank you for providing it. >:The power to speak with Christ's voice: >:Luke 10:16 "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you >:rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." >If those who speak indeed speak the words of God and not their own >inventions. A counter-example is 1Tim 4:1. :You haven't shown me any "Catholic" inventions in your post. How many times shall I repeat that my aim was not to prove that this or that Catholic doctrine is a recent invention but to tear the blank cheque out of your hand? Do you say "The apostles were given power"? I respond "They are required to be faithful". Do you insist that your clergy is faithful? The Muslims say it too. >:The power to legislate: >:Mat 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be >:bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in >:heaven. >Not to legislate but to discipline by exhortation and excommunication. >Legislation, according to my Webster dictionary, includes "making laws." >The apostles, on the other hand, were obliged to bring forth what they >had learnt from Christ, and not their own inventions. It's quite awkward >that a poor, dictionary-needing Hungarian has to point it out to you. :You are wrong. They had the power based on the above verse to make laws. :That is what it means to bind and loose ON EARTH. Aren't preaching and excommunication ON EARTH? Or do you want me to buy into the ridiculous and presumptuous trifling that your clergy can subject the Almighty God to their unbridled caprice? Or they have some guidelines apart from their own word? Then what? >:The power to discipline: [Mat 18:17] >Now, to what does Mt 18:15-18 (using the same words: bind and loose) >refer? Making laws or disciplining? Be consistent at least cling to >your own former opinion! :It is both. Why does it have to be one or the other. :Typical Protestant logic in all their doctrines. You quoted this place (Mt 18:15-18) twice, deriving two things from it. But it was once said by the Lord in that passage, and specifically to church discipline. Now you come and endeavour to seek the authorization to make laws in a text which refers to church discipline. If this is not gratuitous exegesis, then what can be so labelled? This will suffice about logic. >:He gave His authority to men. >No. He gave them commission. Any authority is restricted within the >limits of this commission, and it is not a blank papal cheque. :It is still authority, restricted or not, and no, it isn't a blank :cheque. Who said it was? The pope. Gregory the Seventh in the Dictatus Papae proposed that "no one can judge the pope on earth". Boniface the Eighth roared in Unam Sanctam that "If the spiritual power [by which he means the Church government, and especially himself] deviates, it can be judged by God alone, not by man, as the Apostle testifies: >The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one."< If you perchance want to defend this approach, in which only the pope is "spiritual" (otherwise others could as well aspire to exemption from responsibility to humans), do it quickly. >:>To follow tradition because other tradition affirms the tradition >:>is to have that other Source, Joe. "Sacred Tradition" is not sacred >:>when it is counter to the clear record we have. :It is only counter in your eyes Remember to whom YOU answered in the post which I grabbed from the newsgroup. It was not me. However, I'll prove that much of your traditions is contrary to the Bible. There are other pending threads. :although you have not shown me anything :counter to Scripture. But since I have pretty much, challenged you to show :me the doctrines you think are counter to Scripture please do it one at a :time or I will only handle one anyway. One of them is the "Sacrifice of the Mass". Another is the "ministerial priesthood." Further, almost the whole Mariology (Theotokos, Immaculate, Co-redemptress, Mediatrix, Queen of Heaven). Also, papacy. Et cetera. >:There is no Tradition contrary to the Bible. >Try Mk 7. :Mark 7 refers to the traditions of men. Try 2 Thess. 2. 2Thes 2 refers to those traditions which are not contained in the first and the second letters to the Thessalonians. They may be found elsewhere in the NT. Note, this is not failure to have all divine doctrine at our disposal, because it is just an assertion on your side that your denomin- ation has preserved what is missing from 1-2Thes. You can't tell me what exactly Paul's unwritten teaching to the Thessalonians was, neither can I.