The Apostolic succession

[okinrus]

Secondly, I did not say that central organization was unnecessary, not did I say it is not, for that matter. But if there IS to be a leader underneath Christ, surely it is only logical that this would be by HIS choosing as opposed to a secular government system, am I correct? And is this not evident in the case of David and Saul?

Why do you figure that a central goverment chooses who will be Pope? I don't claim that Jesus needs a Pope: God needs nothing and all things are possible with God. The only thing I've said was that a central organization was "best," but even this comment should be made with respect to the age we live in.

1 Peter 2:13
Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.

As far as I am concerned there is a difference between "ordinance of man" and "insitution of God", do you not agree?

This refers to a secular goverment. "Give to caesar what is caesar's."

Furthermore, are you implying that without a Pope, the Church of God would cease to be united?

No, but Jesus has obviously left some of what we do our free will. The Church was able to choose Mathias by lots without God directly telling them to.

Do you forget in the time of David that there was a priest set over Israel named Samuel?

No

And do you remember that he served a function other than mere pomp, especially regarding adherence to the scripture which "the Church" now disdainfully disregards and throws to the wind.

No one's throwing scripture away.

And as for the Bible not "explicitly" saying there should not be a leader, you are the one claiming that "grace and power flows" through the Pope, which surely you must understand, implies the Divine hand is upon his seat?

Yes, that is correct but does not always mean the Pope becomes Pope by extraordinary means. Jesus told Pilate that he would not be governor unless if He had allowed him to be. Did Pilate became the governor by secular means?

Also as I previously mentioned, the Bible has specifically named Jesus as the High Priest

The Pope is not considered the "High Priest" but the servent of servents.

negating any man's claim over authority over the "central organization" which unifies the Church.

Where did I say the Pope claims authority over the "central organization which unifies the Church?" Who chose Stephen to distribute the bread to the widows in acts?

Moreover and even more shockingly, you say that the mercies of God, even the fruits of the Spirit, are not SUFFICIENT to unify the Church, even though Scripture CLEARLY says otherwise.

Where did I say the Spirit was not sufficient to unify the Church? If the Spirit flows within the Pope, then who is really in charge? Why does John say that anyone who enters through the gate, the lambs hear his voice, but the one who is outside and breaks in is a robber?

Now this puts you in a dilemma, do you therefore say that Scripture is wrong?

Why? I believe that the source of Scripture is the Church, so I believe the teachings of Scripture is consistent with the teachings of the Church.

,

 

[§outh§tar]

This refers to a secular goverment. "Give to caesar what is caesar's."

That was my point, as seen later on where you attempt to justify the Pope using Pilate..

No, but Jesus has obviously left some of what we do our free will. The Church was able to choose Mathias by lots without God directly telling them to.

Now you are really trying hard... taking the verse out of context.
I would advise you to read Acts 1:24-26. They PRAYED and ASKED God to show them which one was His chosen. You are DELIBERATELY lying by saying otherwise, because it was OBVIOUSLY not free will if the apostle's prayed for it first and so NO, God did show them which He had chosen. Unless you don't believe God was capable of answering their prayer or it wasn't important enough for Him to answer...

No one's throwing scripture away.

1 Timothy 3:16 specifically denies the foolish notion of "the Church" that "scripture is not the final authority". Unless of course there is some manner of twisting the text..

Yes, that is correct but does not always mean the Pope becomes Pope by extraordinary means. Jesus told Pilate that he would not be governor unless if He had allowed him to be. Did Pilate became the governor by secular means?

Oh, the horror! You know that isn't even related! Pilate's authority was not even religious that you should compare or use his name in this discussion.

The Pope is not considered the "High Priest" but the servent of servents.

Are you not the one who claimed that "power flows" through the Pope? You never corroborated that claim either..

Where did I say the Pope claims authority over the "central organization which unifies the Church?" Who chose Stephen to distribute the bread to the widows in acts?

Catholic authorities allege that the common person cannot understand the Word of God. There needs to be, therefore, a “clergy” to instruct the “lay” person in terms of what he is to believe and practice.

I would invite you to read 1 Peter 5:3.

Catholicism contends that the canonical Scriptures were never intended to be the final body of authority in determining God’s truth for humanity. Rather, it is argued, “the Bible is not the only source of faith ... but is a dead letter ....”

The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes papacy as
the office and jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, or the pope (Latin: papa, from the Greek pappas, “father”), who presides over the central government of the Roman Catholic church, the largest of the three major branches of Christianity.

Now I hope you see the futility in insisting that the pope has no authority of the "central organization". Unless you know better than the researchers...

Where did I say the Spirit was not sufficient to unify the Church? If the Spirit flows within the Pope, then who is really in charge? Why does John say that anyone who enters through the gate, the lambs hear his voice, but the one who is outside and breaks in is a robber?

For someone who claims the Bible is not the final authority, do you have the audacity to claim that the Spirit of Holiness "flows" within the Pope? Again, what scripture do you have to back this up?

As for your quote, it is of no consequence in this discussion for I can easily add the verse about 'Lord, lord, did we not cast out demons and perform miracles in your name' to show that there are wolves in sheep's clothing masquerading as God's "Church".

Why? I believe that the source of Scripture is the Church, so I believe the teachings of Scripture is consistent with the teachings of the Church.

,

!!!!!!
I nearly collapsed when I read that. Scripture comes from the Church? Surely you must be joking! Scripture is divinely inspired and consequently perfect and incapable of flaw and yet you claim it's source is the Church? No wonder the uninspired and flawed Apocrypha is used in "the Church"!

To further expound:
Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" or, as it is translated in the New American Standard Version, "All scripture is inspired by God." The term, inspiration, does not reflect the exact sense of theopneustos, which is the term in our passage. Theopneustos means "God-breathed"; the Scriptures are breathed out by God, not breathed in. So we may say that the Bible is the product of God breathing out His words so what He wanted written got written. In other words, the Scriptures are the product of divine breath assuring us that the sixty-six books of the Bible are the very words of God.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1343.htm

 

[okinrus]

I would advise you to read Acts 1:24-26. They PRAYED and ASKED God to show them which one was His chosen.

You don't think that the Pope prays before making a decision? Anyway, how did they narrow the selection to be between people who were longstanding disciples of Jesus? The fact remains, Peter spoke by the Holy Spirit and his decision was accepted. Peter does not speak on his own authority but upon God's.

You are DELIBERATELY lying by saying otherwise, because it was OBVIOUSLY not free will if the apostle's prayed for it first and so NO, God did show them which He had chosen.

No, I brought it up from memory. "During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers(there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the moth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus...Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection." Why doesn't God reveal all this information to each individual member of the Church? Why does Peter even have to speak at all?

Unless you don't believe God was capable of answering their prayer or it wasn't important enough for Him to answer...

No, but I don't see the difference between Peter praying and then speaking on behalf of the 120 and the Pope praying and speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church?

1 Timothy 3:16 specifically denies the foolish notion of "the Church" that "scripture is not the final authority". Unless of course there is some manner of twisting the text..

There's no where in the Bible where it says that the Bible is the *only* source of proof and teaching. Although you could argue that all doctrine that was to be given to man is within the Bible, you will never be able to justify the authority being only within the Bible. All authority is God's, just as Isaiah says "All glory is the LORD's." We have the ability to step within God's glory or not.

The Bible also is not a closed book. It does not define the words it uses and 1 John:27 even says "As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyoone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain to him."

Are you not the one who claimed that "power flows" through the Pope? You never corroborated that claim either..

Yes, but the Pope is not the power.

Catholic authorities allege that the common person cannot understand the Word of God. There needs to be, therefore, a “clergy” to instruct the “lay” person in terms of what he is to believe and practice.

SouthStar, if the Church believed that the laity could not understand the word of God, they would not bother teaching them. Since the earliests masses described by Justin Marytr, masses consist of a reading from the Holy Scripture. In reality, I think we've just kept the same view held by Origen in is response to a claim that Christians are part of a "mystery religion." It's not necessary for the common person to involve themselves in the logical proofs of everything that the Church believes. And this view may have been exagerated as during the middle ages there was a number heresies that were based on reading out of context. For example, one heretical group decided that you were not saved unless if you really did sell everything. Because most of the populace could not read, it was the Church's word or the heretics. If you can't read, what's to stop what's to stop someone from saying "this is what the Bible says" when the Bible says something entirely different?

The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes papacy as
the office and jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, or the pope (Latin: papa, from the Greek pappas, “father”), who presides over the central government of the Roman Catholic church, the largest of the three major branches of Christianity.

Now I hope you see the futility in insisting that the pope has no authority of the "central organization". Unless you know better than the researchers...

You're still misunderstanding what I've said. The Pope does not have any power or authority of himself. But that which he is trusted and given by God, he has "power." For example, Jesus said to Peter "feed my lambs" and we take that it means that Peter is given the authority and power to do this. He said to his apostles, having breathed the holy Spirit upon them, that they have the power to forgive someone's sins. That doesn't, however, mean that the apostle's could resist the holy Spirit and forgive someone who they should not have forgiven.

Catholicism contends that the canonical Scriptures were never intended to be the final body of authority in determining God’s truth for humanity. Rather, it is argued, “the Bible is not the only source of faith ... but is a dead letter ....”

The Catholic church believes that the Bible, when interpreted within the Church, is consistent with what the Church teaches. The early father's such as St. Iranaeus, St.Jerome, and Origen all spoke highly of the Bible. This notwithstanding, however, that certain passages could be interpreted to be something that the original authors did not intend.

For someone who claims the Bible is not the final authority, do you have the audacity to claim that the Spirit of Holiness "flows" within the Pope? Again, what scripture do you have to back this up?

I have my reason for believing this but it's not relevant, and it's not something I'm going to argue about.

As for your quote, it is of no consequence in this discussion for I can easily add the verse about 'Lord, lord, did we not cast out demons and perform miracles in your name' to show that there are wolves in sheep's clothing masquerading as God's "Church".

Perhaps, but my point is that evil upsurps power while someone of God is given power. I was also was showing that someone of God, such as the Pope, can speak and people will listen.

I nearly collapsed when I read that. Scripture comes from the Church? Surely you must be joking! Scripture is divinely inspired and consequently perfect and incapable of flaw and yet you claim it's source is the Church? No wonder the uninspired and flawed Apocrypha is used in "the Church"!

No, what I said is consistent because the Church includes those inspired by the Holy Spirit and Jesus. The writings do not have theological errors. But since some of the writings are not oracles from the Lord but are human recordings of events and some even draw upon sources outside of the Bible, the factual reality(that does not have any bearing on theology) of some of the passages could be questioned. Different vantages points of the same event will see it differently; for example, the death of Judas. Nevertheless, this is irrelevant to theology and would not have any bearing on the faith.

 

[§outh§tar]

You don't think that the Pope prays before making a decision? Anyway, how did they narrow the selection to be between people who were longstanding disciples of Jesus? The fact remains, Peter spoke by the Holy Spirit and his decision was accepted. Peter does not speak on his own authority but upon God's.

Yes, but even then how does that have ANYTHING to do with your claim that they acted outside of God to indoctrinate Matthias?

No, I brought it up from memory. "During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers(there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the moth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus...Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection." Why doesn't God reveal all this information to each individual member of the Church? Why does Peter even have to speak at all?

NOW you change the focus to Peter and what really gets me here is that you never just come out and make the assertion but you just keep asking me questions for me to answer which makes the discussion even more difficult. I presume you are now saying that Peter had authority of some sort? Before continuing further here I would like for you to establish what you are trying to say here.

No, but I don't see the difference between Peter praying and then speaking on behalf of the 120 and the Pope praying and speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church?

You are using Peter to justify the Pope?
God has ordained no one for such a thing but rather has inspired his flock to do so. If you remember correctly, Paul many times in his introduction spoke of his incessant prayer for his audience. That does NOT mean Paul recieved/gave himself or even accepted an august title for his prayer. That would be foolishness and prideful for him to do so!

There's no where in the Bible where it says that the Bible is the *only* source of proof and teaching. Although you could argue that all doctrine that was to be given to man is within the Bible, you will never be able to justify the authority being only within the Bible. All authority is God's, just as Isaiah says "All glory is the LORD's." We have the ability to step within God's glory or not.

I am NOT arguing that all doctrine is within the Bible, I am providing AMPLE evidence from the Bible ITSELF to prove to you that such is the case.

CONSEQUENTLY, you are then implying that God's word is inefficient or otherwise NOT enough and therefore there needst be some other "source". This is a great heresy indeed irreconcilable with the scripture I provided in ANY way. God does not provide two fountains for the same drinker.

-----
See 1 Timothy 5:18 and in 2 Peter 3:16 where the term Scripture is used comprehensively of both Testaments.

The point we are making relative to the matter at hand is this. If the Scriptures are capable of making a person complete, and furnishing him completely for every righteous activity, then it cannot be argued that the Bible is but a “dead letter,” inadequate for one’s religious instruction. It must not be contended that the “voice of the church” is imperative, both traditionally and currently, to complete the Christian’s source of knowledge.
------

The Bible also is not a closed book. It does not define the words it uses and 1 John:27 even says "As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyoone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain to him."

And now you have the audacity to make the claim that after two millenia, God has not found it in His goodness to close the canon and even by His grace has not found it good to show otherwise in His Scripture?

And now to the Bible verse:
You handily left out the previous verse. If you had read it in context, you would have seen that he was referring to the Spirit of Holiness and it's unction "concerning those who try to decieve you".

Now you can either try to TWIST it out of context or read it in the glorious harmony of scripture:

Matthew 10:19
9But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Now if you can't see how this does not correlate with "the anointing.. abides in you.. you do not need that anyone teach you" then you can at least show me how your interpretation corroborates with the rest of Scripture.

SouthStar, if the Church believed that the laity could not understand the word of God, they would not bother teaching them. Since the earliests masses described by Justin Marytr, masses consist of a reading from the Holy Scripture. In reality, I think we've just kept the same view held by Origen in is response to a claim that Christians are part of a "mystery religion."

Christianity is not a "mystery religion" for your information. That is another heresy you have brought to the table that is in direct conflict with Scripture, and the only way you seem to get out of the trench you are digging is by saying Scripture isn't the only "source"..

Matthew 13
10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

Therefore Christianity is NOT a mystery religion. Secondly, we must also consider the coming of the Spirit of Holiness, upon which you have NO basis for an assertion that Christianity is a "mystery religion". What more, your own quote from 1 John 2:27 refutes this claim!

It's not necessary for the common person to involve themselves in the logical proofs of everything that the Church believes.

Do you know that that statement is in DIRECT violation of what Jesus said? Now I don't know how you are going to answer for such malicious heresy which is in vehement and despicable contradiction to Scripture. Not only that but you are referring to God's creation as "the common person" and please do not lie or twist your way out of that, you know that was meant in a demeaning sense quite evident from context.

And this view may have been exagerated as during the middle ages there was a number heresies that were based on reading out of context. For example, one heretical group decided that you were not saved unless if you really did sell everything. Because most of the populace could not read, it was the Church's word or the heretics. If you can't read, what's to stop what's to stop someone from saying "this is what the Bible says" when the Bible says something entirely different?

----
Salmon points out that it is an undeniable historical fact that as the Roman ecclesiastical system evolved, the time came when Catholic clerics surrendered the idea that the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church could be defended by the Scriptures. Hence, by default, the notion arose that “the Bible does not contain the whole of God’s revelation, and that a body of traditional doctrine existed in the Church equally deserving of veneration” (Salmon, 28).
----

By this you only serve to accuse yourself, for as my quote shows, what is to stop "stop" the Church from saying that the Bible is not the only "source"?

You're still misunderstanding what I've said. The Pope does not have any power or authority of himself. But that which he is trusted and given by God, he has "power." For example, Jesus said to Peter "feed my lambs" and we take that it means that Peter is given the authority and power to do this. He said to his apostles, having breathed the holy Spirit upon them, that they have the power to forgive someone's sins. That doesn't, however, mean that the apostle's could resist the holy Spirit and forgive someone who they should not have forgiven.

!!!!!!
I nearly had another collapse or attack while reading this! Do you TRULY believe that? I wish for some other Christian insight from this forum in this very matter to help prove/disprove my point, this is certainly serious!

You, by your own twisting of Scripture, have resorted to placing the word power in quotes to serve your agenda. That was a PERSONAL command to Peter, EASILY verifiable by checking Matthew 28:19. By this evidence, your own argument therefore concludes that we have ALL been given power and by that statement, we should ALL be pope!

----
No interpretation is to be placed upon a difficult and obscure passage (such as this one) that would place it in direct conflict with numerous other clear texts. The fact is, though all Christians are to forgive one another, i.e., have a forgiving disposition (Eph. 4:32), ultimately, only God can bestow absolute pardon (cf. Psa. 130:4; Isa. 43:25; Dan. 9:9; Mic. 7:18; Acts 8:22). The Lord did not grant that right to the apostles or anyone else.
The Catholic church believes that the Bible, when interpreted within the Church, is consistent with what the Church teaches. The early father's such as St. Iranaeus, St.Jerome, and Origen all spoke highly of the Bible. This notwithstanding, however, that certain passages could be interpreted to be something that the original authors did not intend.

3. The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles were authorized only to announce the terms of forgiveness, and that upon the basis of God’s previous appointment. Literally, the text suggests: “Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.” The first verbs in the two clauses are aorist tense forms, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which commenced before the action of the aorists. In other words, the apostles (and others since that time) were only authorized to declare forgiveness consistent with what the Lord had already determined. In a comprehensive treatment of this passage, noted Greek scholar J.R. Mantey pointed out that the Greek "fathers" never quoted this passage in support of the concept of absolution (see Journal of Biblical Literature, 58, [1939], pp. 243-249). For further comment, see: Boyce Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament, Anderson, In: Warner, 1958, pp. 80-81.

4. Finally, this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the apostles, on the day of Pentecost, in harmony with the Spirit’s guidance, did not personally forgive the sins of anyone; rather, they merely announced the conditions of pardon to which men and women were amenable. To believers who sincerely inquired: “. . . what shall we do?”, Peter responded, “Repent ye, and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins. . . ” (Acts 2:37-38). Subsequently the reader is informed that: “They then that received his word were immersed. . . ” (41). Hence, we conclude, upon the basis of this testimony, that by means of that word, they received the forgiveness of their sins.

John 20:23 does not sanction the modern Catholic clergy procedure of granting “absolution” from sin.

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/canManForgiveSins.htm
-----

I have my reason for believing this but it's not relevant, and it's not something I'm going to argue about.

Forgive me if I sound a bit irate at 1 in the morning but surely, one so educated as yourself would not be so shy that he would not even care to share its value?

Perhaps, but my point is that evil upsurps power while someone of God is given power. I was also was showing that someone of God, such as the Pope, can speak and people will listen.

So could Hitler, and so could Ghandi and so could people with guns. Does that mean "grace and power flow" through them?
And by your "point", you are claiming that what God has established can be "upsurped", which is of course ludicrous but I would like for you to show me the scriptural evidence for this.

No, what I said is consistent because the Church includes those inspired by the Holy Spirit and Jesus. The writings do not have theological errors. But since some of the writings are not oracles from the Lord but are human recordings of events and some even draw upon sources outside of the Bible, the factual reality(that does not have any bearing on theology) of some of the passages could be questioned. Different vantages points of the same event will see it differently; for example, the death of Judas. Nevertheless, this is irrelevant to theology and would not have any bearing on the faith.

Does Scripture claim to be errant in any way in any place at all? If you belive Scripture to be the Word of God, then you know that scripture means "God breathed", which means that saying Scripture is in ANY way flawed is an insult on God's capability to deliver Truth and to preserve His oracles through the ages.

I am too tired to even try to mount an argument on this part at 1:30 in the morning but I do hope you have taken a thorough and complete examination of my arguments as I have yours. I recieved some background information from here, in case you are interested:

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/september2002.htm

Good night, or rather, Good morning.

 

[stretched]

Hmmm...

Now I understand why there are more than 34000 different Christian denominations in existance today. Do you dudes even pray to the smae god?

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

If they didn't, they wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[okinrus]

SouthStar, you really ought to calm down a bit. I respect your view, though I don't agree with everything.

Yes, but even then how does that have ANYTHING to do with your claim that they acted outside of God to indoctrinate Matthias?

Peter did not act outside of God, though I don't believe that Peter was not given explicit revelation on this matter.

NOW you change the focus to Peter and what really gets me here is that you never just come out and make the assertion but you just keep asking me questions for me to answer which makes the discussion even more difficult. I presume you are now saying that Peter had authority of some sort? Before continuing further here I would like for you to establish what you are trying to say here.

Peter was not explicitely told beforehand to cast lots for the next apostle. He was acting with God, but just as God does not directly say "do this," it's likely that God did not communicate to Peter that way. And the fact that Peter brought this up and they all listen means that Peter was managing the task of what God wanted to do.

You are using Peter to justify the Pope?

No, I'm limiting this discusion. Are you using Pope to mean John Paul II or the Papacy in general? I don't seek to "justify" someone.

God has ordained no one for such a thing but rather has inspired his flock to do so. If you remember correctly, Paul many times in his introduction spoke of his incessant prayer for his audience.

I'm confused by what you mean here. I know that Paul in his letters says to "pray unceasingly."

That does NOT mean Paul recieved/gave himself or even accepted an august title for his prayer. That would be foolishness and prideful for him to do so!

I don't know what verse in question your refering to? The office of Pope is not a title but a job.

I am NOT arguing that all doctrine is within the Bible, I am providing AMPLE evidence from the Bible ITSELF to prove to you that such is the case.

Well, there's some merit in your argument. Because Jesus said there is no greater love then this, there will be no new ways to salvation and no new events that will change the path. But some of that which is unknown in the Bible has been discovered.

CONSEQUENTLY, you are then implying that God's word is inefficient or otherwise NOT enough and therefore there needst be some other "source". This is a great heresy indeed irreconcilable with the scripture I provided in ANY way. God does not provide two fountains for the same drinker.

No, I'm not implying that there *needs* to be another source. What I'm implying is that there is another source, and this is the source from which the Bible was created. This, I think, should be rather obvious. Is Jesus the source? Yes, even though Jesus did not write Paul's letters, Jesus was the source. It's consistent that the Bible was created within the Church, within Christ. And I believe all should believe this because Paul brought what he had written to the twelve.

When I use Church, I mean the same Church that the apostle's belong to. I mean the greater body of believers(including you), but sometimes, by context, I will refer to those who are baptized within the Roman Church.

Therefore Christianity is NOT a mystery religion. Secondly, we must also consider the coming of the Spirit of Holiness, upon which you have NO basis for an assertion that Christianity is a "mystery religion". What more, your own quote from 1 John 2:27 refutes this claim!

SouthStar, I never claimed that Christianity was a "mystery religion." Origen was answering a a claim by one of the ditractors.

You, by your own twisting of Scripture, have resorted to placing the word power in quotes to serve your agenda. That was a PERSONAL command to Peter, EASILY verifiable by checking Matthew 28:19. By this evidence, your own argument therefore concludes that we have ALL been given power and by that statement, we should ALL be pope!

I don't have a agenda except for the truth. I brought up this case, not to show that the Pope had authority, but to show that God trusts Peter.

3. The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles were authorized only to announce the terms of forgiveness, and that upon the basis of God’s previous appointment. Literally, the text suggests: “Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.” The first verbs in the two clauses are aorist tense forms, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which commenced before the action of the aorists. In other words, the apostles (and others since that time) were only authorized to declare forgiveness consistent with what the Lord had already determined. In a comprehensive treatment of this passage, noted Greek scholar J.R. Mantey pointed out that the Greek "fathers" never quoted this passage in support of the concept of absolution (see Journal of Biblical Literature, 58, [1939], pp. 243-249). For further comment, see: Boyce Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament, Anderson, In: Warner, 1958, pp. 80-81.

I don't know of any translation that translates the passage this way.

Salmon points out that it is an undeniable historical fact that as the Roman ecclesiastical system evolved, the time came when Catholic clerics surrendered the idea that the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church could be defended by the Scriptures. Hence, by default, the notion arose that “the Bible does not contain the whole of God’s revelation, and that a body of traditional doctrine existed in the Church equally deserving of veneration” (Salmon, 28).

Go back to my quotations of St. Iranaeus. This was well before the middle ages.

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar, you really ought to calm down a bit. I respect your view, though I don't agree with everything.

Peter did not act outside of God, though I don't believe that Peter was not given explicit revelation on this matter.

Well, let's just review what you said lest you call me a liar:
The Church was able to choose Mathias by lots without God directly telling them to.

You moderated with the adverb "directly" here. And why do you comment on the "explicit" revelation of the matter? What does the nature of the revelation have to do with the discussion at all?

I also find it interesting that you employed double negatives and have effectively contradicted yourself, either that or I have no idea where on earth you are going with this.

Removing the double negatives, which changes not the meaning of the sentence has it read:

Peter did not act outside of God, though I believe that Peter was given explicit revelation on this matter.

This is what your sentence, with the double negatives included says. Thereby saying that Peter was NOT influenced by God. It's right there in the sentence you wrote and I'm not making it up.

Is that therefore what you are finally saying about the papacy?

Peter was not explicitely told beforehand to cast lots for the next apostle. He was acting with God, but just as God does not directly say "do this," it's likely that God did not communicate to Peter that way. And the fact that Peter brought this up and they all listen means that Peter was managing the task of what God wanted to do.

Well since you have finally made your assertion, I take it that this is supposed to corelate to the Pope or the papacy in general, whichever the "grace and power flows" through.

Now that you have brought this up, I would like you also to redefine the function of the pope according to this assertion so that we don't scramble all over the place.

No, I'm limiting this discusion. Are you using Pope to mean John Paul II or the Papacy in general? I don't seek to "justify" someone.

I am questioning the Pope's position in Church hierarchy and I suppose consequently, his calling.

You are not and in this discussion, are defending him. Right?

I'm confused by what you mean here. I know that Paul in his letters says to "pray unceasingly."

This was in response to your comment and by this I mean if you are touting prayer, then certainly prayer is no justification for the Pope's position.

I don't know what verse in question your refering to? The office of Pope is not a title but a job.

That is not even what I said. I was simply saying for all that reference you gave, Paul did not call himself a Pope.

Well, there's some merit in your argument. Because Jesus said there is no greater love then this, there will be no new ways to salvation and no new events that will change the path. But some of that which is unknown in the Bible has been discovered.

Everytime I read things like this I feel like I am going to collapse! Can you list the doctrines which "unknown in the Bible" have "been discovered"? I especially await your answer on this.

No, I'm not implying that there *needs* to be another source. What I'm implying is that there is another source, and this is the source from which the Bible was created. This, I think, should be rather obvious. Is Jesus the source? Yes, even though Jesus did not write Paul's letters, Jesus was the source. It's consistent that the Bible was created within the Church, within Christ. And I believe all should believe this because Paul brought what he had written to the twelve.

At what time did Paul submit his epistles to the 12 disciples?

You keep taking this discussion in circles. This is what YOU said:

Although you could argue that all doctrine that was to be given to man is within the Bible, you will never be able to justify the authority being only within the Bible.

Now let me begin by pointing out (though not at all important) that you did not refer to Deity by capitalizaing "authority", and even in context it is evident that you did not refer to Christ.

I will begin by defining the Word (John 1:1) using a Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary.

--
He who is to God what man's word is to himself, the manifestation or expression of himself to those without him.
--

Now I hope you understand that the Bible is this expression. Therefore the "alternative" source you cite is no alternative at all, but fully and completely congruent with the Bible. The "source" that is the Bible is the SAME as the "source" that is Jesus. If it were not so, then both would contradict each other, but since they are the same they do not and therefore are not differenct, but the same. I would also like to point out another vicious heresy you have brought, that Jesus was the "source" of Paul's writings. That is NOT at all true and you can check the scriptures for yourself. The Spirit of Holiness was Paul's source, NOT Jesus. I am almost vehement here at this heresy but I will kindly ask you to look at 1 Corinthians 12:3 and if you want to twist that out of context, you would only face John 16:13, the VERY words of Jesus. I do hope you will not interpret one verse in contradiction with the other either.

When I use Church, I mean the same Church that the apostle's belong to. I mean the greater body of believers(including you), but sometimes, by context, I will refer to those who are baptized within the Roman Church.

SouthStar, I never claimed that Christianity was a "mystery religion." Origen was answering a a claim by one of the ditractors.

Here is your quote:
---
SouthStar, if the Church believed that the laity could not understand the word of God, they would not bother teaching them.
---

Are mysteries not things that people "could not understand"?

I don't have a agenda except for the truth. I brought up this case, not to show that the Pope had authority, but to show that God trusts Peter.

I am beginning to become confused here. I just SHOWED you that God is not personal with delegation and now you are barking up the whole thing about Peter which I am still unsure of how it fits into the discussion.

I don't know of any translation that translates the passage this way.

Well because it's NOT a translation. It's a literary examination of the scripture. The two are TOTALLY different and you still failed to respond to my criticism of that great heresy.

Go back to my quotations of St. Iranaeus. This was well before the middle ages.

Well I didn't find any quotations by a St. Iranaeus but rather a passing comment which did not even pertain to the response.


---
I do hope you don't think I'm being too harsh or anything like that. It's just that you only respond to about ten percent of what I write and even then you take the conversation in a totally new direction. It's especially irritating because you have failed to answer to quite a number of key points I have raised. I only wish you would be as thorough as I am in your response (including the previous issues you neglected to address).

In Christ,

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar Friend,

I know what you mean, but do you know what I mean?

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Stretched,

Sure I do. But denominations are just what the word says: names. We have only one God, one faith, and one baptism, and that's where all differences come back to. Various ways of expressing that one faith.

Paul says in 1 Cor. 4:15 "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.".

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Paul says in 1 Cor. 4:15 "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.".

That is actually quite beautiful. Maybe I am just frustrated that mankind can take something of simplistic beauty and feel the need to twist and shape it into 34000 different forms. And the thought occurs to me: "Why the lack of unity?" Yup you can say denominations are just names. But that does not make them go away. Why should ONE faith not be expressed in ONE voice? Does this indicate a distant misunderstood god?

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Why should ONE faith not be expressed in ONE voice? Does this indicate a distant misunderstood god?

I guess I failed answering that one as well, eh? No problem, I'll try again.

It indicates our individuality - and also how we tend to want to assert it. Sometimes leaders emerge, and followers flock to the. The church, like any society, produces natural leaders, and each with his own experience and understanding of God, his own weaknesses in faith, and unfortunately - as it goes with natural leaders - their own inflated ego's. Even if differences can be resolved under one "name", they might not be resolved between people. Paul and Christ clearly said we should resolve our differences, but the modernist attitude conflicts with that: it says everyone is his own ultimate authority.

Actually, you already have the two options right in front of you: The Catholic (from the Greek καθολικος, meaning "general" or "universal") and Eastern Orthodox church, and the Protestant churches. So you can choose: one voice, or many. See what I mean? As long as we are human, we cannot speak as God. Whether you put the emphasis on speaking of God or on speaking in God's name, will decide how many voices you hear. Don't become so impressed with statistical numbers that you forget that it's God you're trying to hear, not people.

And God is both a distant unreachable mystery and a very immediate and personal reality.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Nah, you are always quite clear to me. Methinks I choose not to hear you!

I suppose what I should ask is: Do you think the Christian God is comfortable with the myriad church offshoots. The thing is, yes, we have Catholic and we have Protestant. That in itself is division enough for if the Word were clear there would be no division. There are also the Mormons, Gnostics, JW`s, etc. Yes these are certainly "Christian" offshoots, just as surely as "Christianity" is an offshoot of Judaism. So if the Holy Spirit was really flowing through Christianity, regardless of human nature, assertiveness and lack of humility, the question still remains: "Is God cool with the state of the Christian nation?

And Jenyar, don’t doubt that as surely as you hear God, I hear also.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

No, I don't think it's the way it should be, and there are people constantly working to achieve reconciliation - if not at "official" level, at least among the people that are willing to. I'd say a new kind of church is emerging, one that is entirely spiritual, with very little outward manifestation, like church buildings or names particular to it. Maybe we have gone the round way to come to where God intended us to be in the first place . Although, people usually don't learn unless from experience!

To answer your question, I will say what I've always said: that God is not cool with sin, no matter where it is manifested. The church was laid as pavement on the road to Christ, and people come to Christ from different directions. But Christ is the gate, not the church or a church.

As for Mormons, Gnostics, JW's etc. I think you should pick up the book The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin (I see it's been updated, I have an older edition). Even if it's only to examine the relationships between them and traditional Christianity. The reason they're called cults is mostly because they aren't direct offshoots, some are entirely foreign, some are very American (what I call "God saves the world through Americans" cults), and some are uprooted and replanted versions of Christianity. Of course, underneath them might be some or enough of the "mainstream" truths to thoroughly confuse a casual observer. That's why I suggest reading the book.

I have no doubt that you could hear God if you wanted to, but what do you mean by that?

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Thanks, I will find the book, I am always interested to further my knowledge regarding religions.

Quote Jenyar:
"I have no doubt that you're perfectly able to hear God, but what do you mean by that?"

Difficult to describe in words. (I know you understand that) Let’s say that I experienced something akin to a NDE, where I had to make a choice. I chose to live, and from that day onwards God (for want of a better description) has been by my side, revealing the beauty of creation to me. There are NO words that can express my gratitude. That event occurred a quite a while back.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

I see what you mean. Now you're careful to "taint" that experience with doctrine or religion that might diminish God instead of glorifying Him?

 

[okinrus]

Removing the double negatives, which changes not the meaning of the sentence has it read:

Peter did not act outside of God, though I believe that Peter was given explicit revelation on this matter.

This is what your sentence, with the double negatives included says. Thereby saying that Peter was NOT influenced by God. It's right there in the sentence you wrote and I'm not making it up.

This is what I want: Peter acted with God, but it's unlikely he received explicit revelation. Maybe its all this spanish that I'm learning.

Now that you have brought this up, I would like you also to redefine the function of the pope according to this assertion so that we don't scramble all over the place.

“ No, I'm limiting this discusion. Are you using Pope to mean John Paul II or the Papacy in general? I don't seek to "justify" someone. ”

I am questioning the Pope's position in Church hierarchy and I suppose consequently, his calling.

Luke 12:41, "Then Peter said, 'Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone? And the Lord replied, 'Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servents to distribute the food allowances at the proper time. Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so. Truly, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property. But if the servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, then that servant's master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful."

I don't mean that there were always be a steward, but that it's possible for Jesus to put someone in charge underneath him. Because the question is directed at Peter, it suggests that Peter is the steward.

You are not and in this discussion, are defending him. Right?

I don't seek to justify the grace that the Pope has. But if you really wish, perhaps you should read his biography. Even if you do not believe in everything the Pope believes, it's not necessary for you to believe that he's a evil man.

This was in response to your comment and by this I mean if you are touting prayer, then certainly prayer is no justification for the Pope's position.

I see the Pope as someone who serves the believers, managing and correcting those who are wrong.

That is not even what I said. I was simply saying for all that reference you gave, Paul did not call himself a Pope.

Yes, Paul was not a Pope but an apostle. Both could be viewed as a title in a certain sense.

Everytime I read things like this I feel like I am going to collapse! Can you list the doctrines which "unknown in the Bible" have "been discovered"? I especially await your answer on this.

Yes, it was not until 325AD that the doctrine of the Trinity was declared. Perhaps discover is not a good word. I really mean given to us.

At what time did Paul submit his epistles to the 12 disciples?

He did. I'm not sure if it was all of his letters as it seems he did so early, but I think it's mentioned in one of his letters

Now let me begin by pointing out (though not at all important) that you did not refer to Deity by capitalizaing "authority", and even in context it is evident that you did not refer to Christ.

I don't understand the distinction.

Now I hope you understand that the Bible is this expression. Therefore the "alternative" source you cite is no alternative at all, but fully and completely congruent with the Bible. The "source" that is the Bible is the SAME as the "source" that is Jesus. If it were not so, then both would contradict each other, but since they are the same they do not and therefore are not differenct, but the same.

In order to prove an equality, everything that is in the Bible must be within Christ and vice-versa. This is clearly not the case.

I would also like to point out another vicious heresy you have brought, that Jesus was the "source" of Paul's writings. That is NOT at all true and you can check the scriptures for yourself. The Spirit of Holiness was Paul's source, NOT Jesus. I am almost vehement here at this heresy but I will kindly ask you to look at 1 Corinthians 12:3 and if you want to twist that out of context, you would only face John 16:13, the VERY words of Jesus. I do hope you will not interpret one verse in contradiction with the other either.

Your're nitpicking John's gospel tells us that the Spirit of Truth will take what is of Jesus and proclaim it as truth. To this regard Jesus could be considered as the source, and Paul proclaimed Christ's death and resurrection.

SouthStar, if the Church believed that the laity could not understand the word of God, they would not bother teaching them.

Are mysteries not things that people "could not understand"?

Depends on the context and use of "mystery."

Well because it's NOT a translation. It's a literary examination of the scripture. The two are TOTALLY different and you still failed to respond to my criticism of that great heresy.

I have a copy of the NIV bible which is used by many Protestant evangelicals, and if the verse could truly translated that way, they would most likely opt for it.

 

[§outh§tar]

This is what I want: Peter acted with God, but it's unlikely he received explicit revelation. Maybe its all this spanish that I'm learning.

Well that doesn't make it any less proof of God's direction in his life, is what I think you are saying. But is it proof that the Pope is with God, since you are saying he is acting without God's "explicit revelation"?

Luke 12:41, "Then Peter said, 'Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone? And the Lord replied, 'Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servents to distribute the food allowances at the proper time. Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so. Truly, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property. But if the servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, then that servant's master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful."

I don't mean that there were always be a steward, but that it's possible for Jesus to put someone in charge underneath him. Because the question is directed at Peter, it suggests that Peter is the steward.

And so you are justifying the Pope's "stewardship" and place within the Catholic hierarchy by means of an analogy with Peter?

And what about that definition of the Pope's function and position in the Church hierarchy?

I don't seek to justify the grace that the Pope has. But if you really wish, perhaps you should read his biography. Even if you do not believe in everything the Pope believes, it's not necessary for you to believe that he's a evil man.

Are you saying he's not?

I see the Pope as someone who serves the believers, managing and correcting those who are wrong.

In that case we are all the Pope since we have all been exhorted by Scripture to do these things.

Yes, Paul was not a Pope but an apostle. Both could be viewed as a title in a certain sense.

That is one of the greatest cop-outs I've heard in a while. In a sense? It doesn't even come close! Pope and apostle?

Let me requote this since you failed to address it the first time:

The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes papacy as
the office and jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, or the pope (Latin: papa, from the Greek pappas, “father”), who presides over the central government of the Roman Catholic church, the largest of the three major branches of Christianity.

THIS is what I'm basing my arguments on. Unless you are going to tell me that apostle "in a sense" can be defined similarly?

Yes, it was not until 325AD that the doctrine of the Trinity was declared. Perhaps discover is not a good word. I really mean given to us.

The Trinity is mentioned and discussed IN the Bible. It is nothing "outside" of the Bible, as you claim. Whether the Church declared it 325 years later or not does NOT mean it is outside the Bible.

He did. I'm not sure if it was all of his letters as it seems he did so early, but I think it's mentioned in one of his letters

I'd like to see where.

I don't understand the distinction.

It doesn't matter right now, it was just a sidenote to the point I was about to make.

In order to prove an equality, everything that is in the Bible must be within Christ and vice-versa. This is clearly not the case.

I SAID since Christ and the Bible do NOT contradict each other and Christ does not say what is BEYOND the scope of the Bible such that the Bible is unable to address it they CANNOT be different. It's a bit hard for me to put in words.

1) They do not contradict each other.
2) What the Bible says is not inferior to or outside the scope of what Christ says. That is the Bible can affirm whatever Christ says because Christ will not say something that cannot be affirmed by the Bible.
3) By these proofs, they ARE the same. To say they are not would be to say that there are boundaries on the Word of God which prevent it from affirming "everything that is in Christ".

NOTE: By Christ, I refer to the Holy Spirit, whom Christ speaks to us through in these days. All that means is you can substitute Holy Spirit for Christ.

I would also like to say you mentioned doctrines, not doctrine. Please continue listing.

Your're nitpicking John's gospel tells us that the Spirit of Truth will take what is of Jesus and proclaim it as truth. To this regard Jesus could be considered as the source, and Paul proclaimed Christ's death and resurrection.

Well if THAT is the "regard" you want to put it in, then you must ultimately "regard" God the Father as the "source". Both Scriptures I provided are contrary to what you are saying.

Depends on the context and use of "mystery."

ok then, okinrus, what did you mean in that context by "mystery"..?

I have a copy of the NIV bible which is used by many Protestant evangelicals, and if the verse could truly translated that way, they would most likely opt for it.

Well I don't use an NIV and I'm telling you that what I gave is NOT a translation. It's an examination of the ORIGINAL text and the grammar used therein. It has NOTHING to do with the NIV, as such.

I'm also waiting on these things:
1) The Biblical justification that "grace and power flow" through the Pope.
2) Responses to my refutations of some of your statements using Scripture (including, but not limited to, the claims that the Bible is a closed book using 1 John 2:27)
3) Biblical justification for your claim that the Bible is not the final authority on God's truth to humanity, addressing my refutations from scripture for that errant claim.
4) It's not necessary for the common person to involve themselves in the logical proofs of everything that the Church believes.
I especially want to see Biblical justification for this statement of yours.
5) He said to his apostles, having breathed the holy Spirit upon them, that they have the power to forgive someone's sins.
Also back up this claim with OTHER Scriptural authority that proves that Jesus did indeed give them the POWER to forgive sins, also not neglecting to address my refutations from Scripture of this errant claim.
6) But since some of the writings are not oracles from the Lord but are human recordings of events and some even draw upon sources outside of the Bible, the factual reality(that does not have any bearing on theology) of some of the passages could be questioned.
Verses from scripture which admit that the Bible is sometimes subject to human error and that "factual reality" may be contradictory in different verses, also due to "human error". Back all that up with scripture, please.
7) But some of that which is unknown in the Bible has been discovered.
Biblical justification that reveals/foretells that there will be doctrines "discovered" outside of scripture.

These should suffice for the time being.

In Christ,

 

[§outh§tar]

@ stretched

I must totally disagree with what Jenyar is saying.
See here both of you:
http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/2004_05.htm

 

[okinrus]

Well that doesn't make it any less proof of God's direction in his life, is what I think you are saying. But is it proof that the Pope is with God, since you are saying he is acting without God's "explicit revelation"?

The current Pope has not proclaimed anything beyond that which was taught before him.

And so you are justifying the Pope's "stewardship" and place within the Catholic hierarchy by means of an analogy with Peter?

And what about that definition of the Pope's function and position in the Church hierarchy?

I'm sure this outlined somewhere in canon law, but I will try my best. The Pope has the ability to proclaim doctrines that are in the deposit of faith to be binding on believers(which implies infaliability). This is rarely done. The Pope also serves an orginizational role along with conflict resolution, and he must answer modern yet global threats to the faith such as abortion and contraception.

In that case we are all the Pope since we have all been exhorted by Scripture to do these things.

True, for the most part, the Pope is just an ordinary believer.

1) They do not contradict each other.
2) What the Bible says is not inferior to or outside the scope of what Christ says. That is the Bible can affirm whatever Christ says because Christ will not say something that cannot be affirmed by the Bible.
3) By these proofs, they ARE the same. To say they are not would be to say that there are boundaries on the Word of God which prevent it from affirming "everything that is in Christ".

They are not exactly the same but are close. Someone who hears Christ's voice and hears it as true has done correctly. But it's possible to believe that the writings are true, yet not hear Christ's voice. The Pharisees would be a typical example, but we end up to doing this sometimes.

By Christ, I refer to the Holy Spirit, whom Christ speaks to us through in these days. All that means is you can substitute Holy Spirit for Christ.

I don't think this is good substitution. Someone who disobeys Christ's words has done badly, but someone who disobeys the Holy Spirit's words has done worse.

I would also like to say you mentioned doctrines, not doctrine. Please continue listing.

Ok, where does it explicitly say you believe in salvation by faith alone? No matter how much "evidence" you bring up, there will aways be someone who quotes something else. There will always be arguments that salvation is of faith, by faith but not just faith.

Now a saying that I've come across that's hinted within the Bible and I believe true is "Love is the culmination of the virtues." The rationale was that if someone denies Hope, they deny Love; denies Charity, they deny love; and denies Faith, they deny Love. Deny Love and all the virtues are gone. Yet because this is not in the Bible, I could never believe it's true. I could say its likely to be true, but a final decision could never be made.

The exact problem with the Trinity is that although there is persuasive and ample proof texts of the doctrine within the Bible, there's no guarantee(assuming sola-scriptura) in the logical process used nor the possible translation; the logical process and reasoning to prove anything from the Bible is outside of the Bible.

Hence, a deranged person could start defining good as bad and bad as good. He can do this because such terms are not defined from the Bible, and any things mentioned as good could be redefined. The Bible is not closed to this respect: the definitions of the words used to express God's thoughts are not included.

Ideally, however, the Bible should be used to assure someone of the truth that they've been given. It's a good witness to the faith, and God is able to speak through words within the pages. It's not the only way that He speaks, but since the source is Himself, the Bible is good to this regard.

ok then, okinrus, what did you mean in that context by "mystery"..?

When I use "mystery religion," I mean the cults outside of Christianity and the standard state pagan gods. For instance, the Osirus cults and Mithras, and to some extent gnostism. These involved hidden doctrines, which were not revealed to the initiates until they completed an extensive amount of trials.

Also back up this claim with OTHER Scriptural authority that proves that Jesus did indeed give them the POWER to forgive sins, also not neglecting to address my refutations from Scripture of this errant claim.

Some of your questions deserve entirely new threads. But I should be able to answer this one. Baptism. You cannot baptise yourself, but there's clear scriptural evidence that both the baptism of repentence and the baptism of the holy Spirit cleanses sins. The Holy Spirit is able to detect those who are doing so falsely: no one's upsurping the Holy Spirit's power.