Where does the Bible say...

[BarneyFife]

Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure oblation, for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

pure oblation is an unbloody sacrifice
Liturgical yes

More confusion. Misapplied.

 

[theefaith]

M
More confusion. Misapplied.

fundementism blinds you to the truth
For 2000 the priesthood of Christ has offered the sacrifice of the glory of the Father in the unity of the Hs

 

[BarneyFife]

fundementism blinds you to the truth
For 2000 the priesthood of Christ has offered the sacrifice of the glory of the Father in the unity of the Hs

Unintelligible

 

[farouk]

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." Rom. 13:1-2

@Ronald David Bruno Good verse to remember...

 

[farouk]

"ALL scripture is God-breathed... "( inspired) 2 Tim. 3:16
The Word of God is the only and final authority because it comes from the Author, the Creator.

John 17.17: "Thy word is truth".

 

[BarneyFife]

@Ronald David Bruno Good verse to remember...

It's a good verse to take out of context, especially if you're an opponent of religious liberty, since an examination of the verses before and after clearly reveal it to be a passage about civil authorities--not church order and discipline.

 

[Illuminator]

The commission of Matthias was spurious. God does not ordain by the casting of lots.

Matthias was not commissioned, he was chosen by the Apostles who had the God given authority to cast lots. This is clear cut proof text for apostolic succession that you are forced to deny by calling scripture "spurious" because it doesn't fit your man made tradition of abolishing the office of bishop.

 

[Illuminator]

Yes, my "theories" are everything. No, I don't belong to a group that bestows infallibility upon human beings.

Neither do Catholics. Since infallibility is impossible for you to understand, you rely on straw man fallacies, as such.

 

[BarneyFife]

Matthias was not commissioned, he was chosen by the Apostles who had the God given authority to cast lots. This is clear cut proof text for apostolic succession that you are forced to deny by calling scripture "spurious" because it doesn't fit your man made tradition of abolishing the office of bishop.

I have no desire to abolish or disclaim the office of bishop.

 

[BarneyFife]

Neither do Catholics. Since infallibility is impossible for you to understand, you rely on straw man fallacies, as such.

infallible
adjective

in·fal·li·ble | \ (ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl

\
Definition of infallible
1 : incapable of error : unerring an infallible memory
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain an infallible remedy
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Doesn't sound like rocket science. And what exactly is my straw man argument?

 

[theefaith]

John 17.17: "Thy word is truth".

the apostles are also God breathed !
Jn 20:21-23

 

[theefaith]

infallible
adjective

in·fal·li·ble | \ (ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl

\
Definition of infallible
1 : incapable of error : unerring an infallible memory
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain an infallible remedy
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Doesn't sound like rocket science. And what exactly is my straw man argument?

the definition for papal infallibility has s very limited, must be by his apostolic authority from the chair of peter to the universal church on matters of faith and morals alone

 

[Illuminator]

infallible
adjective

in·fal·li·ble | \ (ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl

\
Definition of infallible
1 : incapable of error : unerring an infallible memory
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain an infallible remedy
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Doesn't sound like rocket science. And what exactly is my straw man argument?

Infallibility doesn't come from a group of people. That is your straw man. It is a gift from God that prevents the historic Church from teaching error. It has nothing to do with impeccability.

Of course, all authority ultimately comes from God (Paul was called before he was born: Gal 1:15). It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

 

[BarneyFife]

Infallibility doesn't come from a group of people. That is your straw man. It is a gift from God that prevents the historic Church from teaching error. It has nothing to do with impeccability.

Of course, all authority ultimately comes from God (Paul was called before he was born: Gal 1:15). It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Well, it's good to have something to aspire to. From the sound of it, you'd have us all back on the rack if you could. Dig your signature, by the way. I imagine I'll be hearing from the Mods shortly.

 

[BarneyFife]

Infallibility doesn't come from a group of people. That is your straw man.

I never said anything about group Infallibility. There's been more than one Pope, has there not?

 

[BarneyFife]

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites

And there it is folks. The Bible-hating begins. So which is it, do we (of "us and them") have too little faith or too much?

 

[BarneyFife]

By the way, it's been a while since I mentioned that some of the sweetest Christian people (and friends) I know have been/are Catholics. For all I know the pope himself may have a pure heart. But the religious system itself is at odds with the simple teachings of the Gospel. I need no bishop to confess to or to interpret God's will for me. I believe the Bible alone is the single authority of Christian faith and practice. Here I stand. I can do no other without violating my conscience. May God help me.

 

[Illuminator]

I never said anything about group Infallibility. There's been more than one Pope, has there not?

In post #930 you said

No, I don't belong to a group that bestows infallibility upon human beings.

No group bestows infallibility and now you are using polemics to support a straw man. Popes are not infallible on their own. This proves 2 things:
1) that infallibility is impossible for you to understand, but you will argue about it anyway,
2) that you refuse to be reasoned with.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

St. Paul says much about end times, but he never wrote anything about the historic Church being overcome. Such an earth shaking event would have been recorded somewhere but it a not there. Nobody noticed this non-event until the middle of a revolt in the 16th century. How reliable is that?

Matt. 16:19 – for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 – the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 – Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Mark 8:33 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

Luke 10:16 – whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.

Luke 22:32 – Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).

John 11:51-52 – some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

Not understanding is one thing, refusing to understand is something else.

 

[theefaith]

Infallibility doesn't come from a group of people. That is your straw man. It is a gift from God that prevents the historic Church from teaching error. It has nothing to do with impeccability.

Of course, all authority ultimately comes from God (Paul was called before he was born: Gal 1:15). It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Also Jn 15:5

 

[BarneyFife]

In post #930 you said No group bestows infallibility and now you are using polemics to support a straw man. Popes are not infallible on their own. This proves 2 things:
1) that infallibility is impossible for you to understand, but you will argue about it anyway,
2) that you refuse to be reasoned with.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

St. Paul says much about end times, but he never wrote anything about the historic Church being overcome. Such an earth shaking event would have been recorded somewhere but it a not there. Nobody noticed this non-event until the middle of a revolt in the 16th century. How reliable is that?

Matt. 16:19 – for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 – the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 – Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Mark 8:33 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

Luke 10:16 – whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.

Luke 22:32 – Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).

John 11:51-52 – some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

Not understanding is one thing, refusing to understand is something else.

Regardless of your and others' endless rhetoric and antagonistic questions, the Bible doesn't teach apostolic succession of infallibility. It is a fantastical myth supported by 1500+ years of pagan-infused Christian traditions of men. Saying misunderstanding is automatic within Protestantism is the classic genetic fallacy. You seem to have a bit of trouble identifying a true straw man as well. Aggressive (but not all) defenders of Catholicism on this board have a tendency to demonize (yes, I said it) Protestant apologists at a personal level. I'm not accusing you of this. But if the shoe fits... Those defenders commonly can't decide whether their interpretation of the Bible is correct or whether the Bible itself is a liability. This is inconsistent. Protestants contend and always have that the authority of apostolic "successors" is ill-conceived and non-existent. This is nothing new. There is one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. His sacrifice was offered up once for all. The idea of turning bread into the actual body and blood of Christ is blasphemy. As is the claim of bishops to absolve sins by the authority of Heaven. It is antichrist (which means "in place of" Christ). The Pharisees recognized this when Christ claimed to be the Son of God and to have the power to forgive sins on earth. Not knowing His position and authority, they called these claims "blasphemy" which is, specifically, to presume the prerogative of God. Which is the very modus operandi of the Roman Catholic church. In the end, it will not stand. God Himself (not the body of Protestant believers) will overthrow it. Then we shall see exactly what it was that Christ meant that the gates of Hell would not prevail against. This issue has been argued and discussed to such length, that I feel it is time for me to make a pointed statement. I am sorry that objection to the system of Catholicism is so emotionally charged. And I have no doubt whatsoever that most of the Christians who will ultimately be redeemed and live in the new heavens and the new earth with Jesus, will have gone down to Catholic graves. But the Papal system and those who cling to it will eventually, at the time of the Second Advent of Christ, be rewarded (Revelation 18) 6...even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. 7How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. 8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. ...15The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, 16And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, 18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! 19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. ...23And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

God bless you