The Instigator
dsjpk5
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
csd0033
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible and the Church fathers support the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,028 times Debate No: 67737
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (84)
Votes (4)

 

dsjpk5

Pro

I would like to thank csd0033 for suggesting this debate topic, and
for accepting this debate challenge. I hope this is a fruitful
discussion.

I wanted to give the voters a couple things to think about before
casting their votes. Both my opponent and I are going to be offering many Bible verses (sometimes maybe the same ones). And both of us will be suggesting ways to interpret these verses. The key, I believe, is which interpretations coincide with what the early Christians believed....

I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY

To better illustrate this, I am going to share something I heard
Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid say once:

Let's say you are at a garage sale and you come across a 100 year old
book. It looks interesting, so you buy it. You take it home and begin
to read it, but find it difficult to understand. Now let's say that the
author has passed away, but you still have access to his son, who was
in the room when the book was written? All things being equal, wouldn't you trust him over someone born 80 years later who didn't know anyone even remotely connected to the author? Especially when trying to interpret the following phrase:

I never said you stole money.

Now, at first glance, this may seem easy to understand, but there may
be more than one way to I interpret it. What if the person who wrote
that meant

I never said you stole money... He said it. Or...

I never SAID you stole money... But I sure thought it. Or...

I never said YOU stole money... I said she stole it. Or...

I never said you STOLE money... I said you borrowed it. Or...

I never said you stole MONEY. You stole a car.

Now take that verse, multiply it by 10,000, and you have the Bible. You
have dozens of different books, written by different authors, for
different audiences, for different reasons, in different languages, at
different times. So you tell me whose interpretations you can count on
to be most authentic? Those who knew the authors personally, or someone
doing their best, 2,000 years later?

Development of doctrine.

Now of course, over time, we can understand better some of the
implications of a particular teaching. This is something all Christians
recognize. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't become crystallized until
some 300 years after the death of Christ. The key to determining the
difference between development versus departure is this... Is the
teaching in line with what the original Christians believed? No one
expects an elderly man to look like his baby picture. He's much taller
and has gray or white hair. You expect to see this. What you don't
expect is to see a third eye, or a foot growing from his hip.
Development versus departure.

BIBLICAL SUPPORT

"So what are some of the biblical roots of the doctrine of
infallibility? Well, for starters, Jesus Christ Himself, who created
the Catholic Church in Matthew 16:18, also promised the gift of the
Holy Spirit to guide it in truth always.

John 14: 16-17, 26: "I will ask the Father and he will give you another
Paraclete"to be with you always; the Spirit of truth, whom the world
cannot accept, since it neither sees him nor recognizes him because he remains with you and will be within you . . . . the Paraclete, the Holy
Spirit whom the Father will send will remind you of all that I have
told you"

John 16:14: "When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you to all
truth"

Luke 10:16: "He who hears you, hears me"

Mt. 16:19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

Matthew 23:1-3: Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and
observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach,
but do not practice." [1]

CHURCH FATHERS

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will
not overcome it. . . . " [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the
Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he
founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own
authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If
someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he
imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair
of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that
he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first
edition [A.D. 251]. [2]

I now turn it over to my opponent. Good luck!

Sources:
1.http://m.catholicbible101.com...

.htm&fw_sig_premium=1&fw_sig=eb0eedf602e531fa855d1374520fde96&fw_sig_site

=34661311&fw_sig_url=http://www.catholicbible101.com...=

f7954b78ee62a05a2aaf5a6fd4a57ba6408a0eeccacfc72e0cba032095f1afd3-34661311

&fw_sig_access_token=3da7c0e5ffd2e521759f93ff444ff0f7c6cca934&fw_sig_perm

issions=none&fw_sig_tier=2&fw_sig_api_key=522b0eedffc137c934fc7268582d53a

1&fw_sig_social=1&fw_sig_time=1420165335614&fw_sig_partner=webs&fw_sig_po

tential_abuse=1&fw_sig_locale=en-US&fw_sig_is_admin=0&fw_sig_permission_l

evel=0&fb_sig_network=fw#3000

2. http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com...
csd0033

Con

To begin with, I"d like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to dsjpk5 for having accepted my challenge to debate the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility. I"d also like make clear that nothing put forth in this debate should be construed as being an attack against any part of the Christian religion, or even the Roman Catholic Church itself, a church of which I am in fact a confirmed member (although obviously differing slightly in some doctrinal issues!). In fact, I even subscribe to the notion of the papacy, and believe that this throne was bequeathed upon, and has been transferred through Saint Peter. However, I do not accept my Church"s doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Pleasantries aside, I will now get down to the crux of the issue.

The first thing that I"ll do is to clarify the definition of Papal Infallibility that I will be attempting to refute. As defined post-Vatican I, Papal Infallibility is the doctrine that, in layman"s English, the Pope can not only make no error when speaking ex cathedra on matters concerning doctrine, faith, and morals etc., but that he is also prevented from making errors, something that is supposedly the result of the Holy Spirit residing in him as a result of his papacy.

Now, in coming at this issue, I"ll be taking a few angles. First of all, I"m going to be presenting the practical realities of upholding this doctrine; namely, why it is practically impossible to be free of error, and what the potential implications of Papal Infallibility are. To buttress these notions, I will be giving examples of past popes who have made statements that were so obviously problematic that they must at face value disprove Papal Infallibility, and, having established the practical realities of why Papal Infallibility is not a true doctrine, I will speak to the Biblical realities of this doctrine. Afterwards, I will refute some of the arguments made by my opponent.

So, it is my opinion that the first and most weighty objection to papal infallibility is that of common sense. Put quite simply, I am of the humble opinion that no human being save for Jesus (no, not even Peter) has ever been, and will ever be free of error. There are a multitude of examples of cases in which a Pope has said things that were wrong, thus either demonstrating that the Holy Spirit is not in fact very good at preventing poor Papal decisions (forgive the blasphemy), or that fallible men have made mistakes in interpreting the Holy Scriptures. Examples of this are many; within the Bible, there is a potential example from Galatians 2:11-14 in which St. Paul rebukes St. Peter for being "clearly wrong" (NIV) (I say potential example due to the fact that this verse does force us to accept Pauline authority over Petrine authority). Throughout the history of the papacy, there have also been many cases of popes contradicting each other, and saying things that are clearly problematic. Such examples include Stephen VI"s cancellation of all of the ordinations of his second last predecessor (Formosus), Pope Liberius" condemnation of St. Athanasius (who had already been canonized at that point), as well as his Arian heresy (although this is disputed, and many consider it to have been produced under torture). These are just two of many examples of popes who have been contradictory, and who have said things that the Vatican itself considers to be heretical. The second side of this argument is the practical reality of taking Papal Infallibility to its farthest extent. Under the doctrine of Infallibility, it would be possible for a pope to decree that crimes such as abortion, and murder are, in fact, morally acceptable. While this scenario is doubtlessly absurd, and very unlikely, it is nonetheless possible. It is an integral part of the Christian worldview, and an obvious fact of God"s Word that all humans have been endowed with free will, and I certainly believe that this has been extended to all of us, popes included, thus meaning that it would not be impossible for a pope to say something that blatantly contradicts Catholic doctrine, perhaps even something as extreme as the examples that I have provided, something greater even than the examples that I provided of the transgressions of the popes of the past. So, having considered both the historical, and potential aspects of this "Argument from Common Sense", I believe that we must not only recognize the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as being impractical, but also as being impossible.

I would now like to speak briefly as to the Biblical realities of Papal Infallibility. To me it is clear that nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say that having assumed the papacy, Peter shall be infallible, let alone that all of his successors for the entire history of the Church shall be. Rather, we must infer certain things in the absence of scriptural support for this idea. This is how the Church develops doctrine, and I have no issue with it. That being said, I do believe that the burden of proof falls on those proclaiming Infallibility in the absence of clear scriptural support for the doctrine. Having made my case for the inference from Scripture being that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is incorrect, I will now move to a refutation of the arguments presented by my opponent.

To first counter the interpretation of the scriptures provided, I will address the verses provided one by one. Both verses from the Gospel of John do proclaim that the Holy Spirit would guide one to the truth. However, this is not to say that individuals guided by the Holy Spirit would be free of error; rather, it is to say that the truth will out, and will provide our consciences with an indication of what is right, and that eventually all will come to know what is correct in this world, and outside of this world. Once again however, this does not rule out brash statements, things done because of jealousy, power plays etc. The verse from the Gospel of Luke simply proclaims that the Apostles will be preaching the good news. Matthew 16:18 has always been for me the most appealing verse of the Bible in support of Papal Infallibility, however, I would maintain that given the context of other verses in the Bible (many in Acts, most notably), this is taken to apply only to healings, and other miracles from God, while Peter is clearly still not exempt from doctrinal errors (refer back to Galatians 2:1 as an example). As well, this verse still in no way speaks to Peter"s successors, and is in my opinion only directed towards him, and the other Apostles to a certain extent (once again, clearly with healing, and other miraculous abilities). To complete the refutation of the biblical arguments, Matthew 23 is Jesus simply saying that you should practice could morals, and have just actions reflect your just words, this having no bearing on whether or not the Pope, and all of his successors are free from error. As far as the quote from Cyprian is concerned, it is a) not even clear to me whether or not this Church Father is explicitly supporting a doctrine of Papal Infallibility; and b) even if he is, I still do not believe that it stands up to the logical scrutiny that I have provided with my previous arguments.

I hope that my thoughts will not prove to be too disorganized so as to prevent insightful debate, and apologize for any poor grammar and/or writing mistakes. I look forward to your response, and Dominus vobiscum.
Debate Round No. 1
dsjpk5

Pro

Capitalization is provided for emphasis only.

I would like to thank my opponent for his response. I found it
interesting. Having said that, I did have a few concerns. He seems to
be confused as to what the Catholic Church teaches regarding papal
infallibility. I will give an example:

CON'S CONFUSION:

Last round, Con said:

"The first thing that I"ll do is to clarify the definition of Papal
Infallibility that I will be attempting to refute. As defined
post-Vatican I, Papal Infallibility is the doctrine that, in layman"s
English, the Pope can not only make no error when speaking ex cathedra on matters concerning doctrine, faith, and morals etc., but that he is also prevented from making errors, something that is supposedly the result of the Holy Spirit residing in him as a result of his papacy."

MY RESPONSE:

Con is only half right. The Church teaches that the Pope is ONLY
infallible when speaking "ex-cathedra". Despite what Con said, he is
NOT "also prevented from making errors... as a result of his papacy."
The Pope isn't infallible in EVERYTHING he says. Certain conditions
need to be met before the Church considers something the Pope says to be infallible:

1."the Roman Pontiff"

2."speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office
as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme
apostolic authority....")

3."he defines"

4."that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"

5."must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4) [3]

Con then goes on to say that "common sense" denies the possibility of a human being able to be protected from error, but this is problematic
for his case. I say so because the Bible records several acts by human
beings doing things that would normally defy common sense. But once you realize they are doing it with God's help, you understand how such a feat is possible. For example, Peter walked on water (Matthew
14:29), and Peter's shadow healed sick people (Acts 5:15). So
considering how Jesus said "Whatever you bind on Earth is bound in
Heaven" (Matthew 16:19), it is reasonable to believe that God protected Peter from teaching doctrinal error.

CON MISQUOTED THE BIBLE

My opponent claims Galatians 2:11-14 (NIV) states that Paul rebuked
Peter for being "clearly wrong", but the phrase "clearly wrong" is not
found anywhere in the passage. But even if it did, this passage could
STILL not be used to deny papal infallibility. Peter was rebuked for
what he DID; not for what he TAUGHT. The doctrine of infallibility is
ONLY concerned with official TEACHINGS, not BEHAVIORS. (See condition 4 above)

POPE STEVEN VI

Ordinations are not doctrinal teachings, and as such, do not fall under
the category of infallibility. With this in mind, Con's claims
concerning Pope Steven VI are irrelevant when it comes our discussion
(See condition 4 above). Again, Con seems confused as to what exactly the phrase "papal infallibility" means.

POPE LIBERIUS

Con offered no source to support his claim that Pope Liberius signed a
heretical creed and /or condemned Athanasius. As such, His claim
should be disregarded. I would submit that no such evidence exists:

"Allegedly Pope Liberius not only held to an incorrect view of Jesus,
but actually endorsed this by signing onto a heretical creed. The
fourth century was a hard time for the Catholic Church. Despite all
hopes of orthodox Catholics, the Arian movement was growing, especially when Emperor Constantius made it his business to spread Arianismthroughout the empire. He was gaining strong ecclesiastical support, but he wasn"t able to change Pope Liberius" mind. Constantius had Liberius arrested and taken to Milan to appear before him. He was pressured to comply with his will, but Pope Liberius resisted, thus Constantius banished Liberius to live in exile. After 2 years of imprisonment, harassment and exile Liberius was released. Why was he released"did he finally give in and sign this heretical creed, or did the emperor finally give up this battle of the wills? Although it"s possible that Liberius did buckle under the pressure the following evidence indicates he didn"t. Patrick Madrid writes, "Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have
published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible
doubt about it".." So if Pope Liberius did end up signing this creed,
why was there only silence? While it"s true that this is an argument
from silence, it can"t be ignored. Assuming the worst case scenario is
true, Pope Liberius only signed the creed after two years of
harassment, exile and coercion. The signing didn"t come from his own
free will, and for this reason papal infallibility isn"t an issue"
(Pope Fiction, pp. 144-147)." [4]

AGAIN CON SEEMS TO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINE

My opponent tries to make the argument that a Pope could infallibly
teach that murder was a moral act. This is not the case. The Church
has already defined murder a immoral, so to reverse the position, the
Church would have to admit she was initially wrong. Such a move by the Pope would automatically deny the doctrine of infallibility even before murder was declared moral. Therefore it's not possible to reverse a doctrine and still claim infallibility.

EXPLICIT TEACHINGS FROM THE BIBLE

Con attempts to argue that the doctrine of papal infallibility cannot
be true because it is not explicitly taught in the Bible. I would
assert this argument is self-refuting. That's because the belief that
every doctrine we are to accept needs to be explicitly found in the
Bible is itself NOT explicitly found in the Bible. In other words the
doctrine that says we should ONLY accept explicit teachings is not
explicitly taught. So since the Bible doesn't explicitly teach we
should ONLY accept explicit teachings, there's no reason to accept
Con's argument.

IS MY OPPONENT AN INFALLIBLE INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE?

Con offers his own interpretations of the Bible verses I offered in
round one. This leads me to an obvious question: Does my opponent
believe he is protected from error while interpreting the Bible? In
other words, is he infallible? If the answer is "no", then he really
can't say that the Catholic Church is wrong. All he can say is that he
disagrees. And if he can't say the doctrine of infallibility is wrong,
then he can't say the doctrine is unreasonable.

WILL GUIDE YOU TO ALL TRUTH

Con claims that when Jesus says we will be guided to all truth, that
all individual Christians (instead of the Pope) will recognize the
truth. This may sound nice, but it doesn't work in reality. The
reason we have over 23,000 denominations in the United States alone is because none of them completely agree with each other. Each of them thinks what.they believe is true, but they can't all be right. So
either Con is wrong when it comes to his interpretation of the verses
from John, or the Holy Spirit is guiding us into error.

LUKE 10:16

My opponent says this verse is referring to preaching the good news.
Considering his earlier claims that we should reject what is not
explicitly found in the Bible, this is a rather curious statement. I
say so because nowhere in the verse is "good news", or "the.good news" or "the gospel" mentioned. In reality, the verse says "Whoever hears you, hears me." So the question is, if you hear Jesus, is it possible you are hearing an error? What could Jesus be wrong about?

Matthew 16:19

Con claims that this verse is only referring to "healings and other
miracles". The problem with this interpretation is that neither
healings or miracles are mentioned (let alone singled out). Here's
what the verse ACTUALLY says (emphasis mine): "WHATEVER you bind onEarth will be bound in Heaven. WHATEVER you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven." So you see, Jesus didn't limit this authority to just healings and other miracles. He said WHATEVER you bind...
Finally, we've already seen that Galatians 2:1 doesn't refer to
doctrinal errors.

DOES THIS AUTHORITY EXTEND TO PETER'S SUCCESSORS?

When Jesus spoke those words to Peter, he was referring to a passage in Isaiah 22.

19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from
your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant EliR42;akim the son of
HilkiR42;ah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your
girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall
be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he
shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Notice a couple of things here. One, the position God is referring to
is one of succession. One person is being replaced by another person.
Secondly, notice the parallel language between this passage and Matthew 16:19:

Isaiah 22:22

"And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he
shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall
open."

Now compare this to Matthew 16:19:

" I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Both include the handing over the keys of authority, and binding and
loosing. Clearly Jesus had the Isaiah 22 in mind when he spoke in
Matthew 16, and Isaiah 22 is a story of succession. With this in mind,
it seems pretty clear to me Jesus was promising the same authority of
the.keys and binding and loosing to Peter's successors.

MATTHEW 23:1-3

Con says this passage only says we should have good morals. But that's not all it says. It specifically says we should do "whatever they tell you." So the question is, would Jesus tell you to follow WHATEVER they tell you if they didn't speak with God's authority?

DID CYPRIAN SUPPORT PAPAL INFALLIBILITY?

Con said what Cyprian said was not clear, but let's take another look:

"If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he
imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair
of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that
he is in the Church?"

Does that sound like someone who has any doubts about what the Pope teaches?

MORE CHURCH FATHERS

Origen

"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find,
in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a
great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter,
compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small
difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more,
and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]). [5]

Sources:
3.http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
4.http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org...
5.http://www.catholic.com...
csd0033

Con

csd0033 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dsjpk5

Pro

My opponent has forfeited his last round. I ask the voters to consider this whem voting on conduct. I extend all my arguments.
csd0033

Con

csd0033 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
csd0033

Con

csd0033 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
dsjpk5

Pro

Vote Pro!
csd0033

Con

csd0033 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
84 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 months ago
dsjpk5
Okay that is it. Nothing you have ever said makes any sense.

That's not an argument. It's a logical fallacy known as:

Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) " dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity

It is not logical or Biblical

That's easy to say. Let's see you demonstrate how it's not.

and yet you claim some scripture that has nothing to do with the topic backs up your claim that is contradicted through out the entire Bible.

Again, I challenge you to show me how.

Your assertions from scripture is so far from truth and common sense that I wonder if you are not just making it all up trying to sound stupid.

Now you've swerved into another logical fallacy... ad hominem attacks.

To say your interpretation are stretching and twisting the definition of words and extrapolating completely irrelevant things from them would be a huge understatement.

Examples?

I think I could say the sky is blue and you would point out a scripture referencing the weather to claim I am wrong. You have defended murderous Popes

How?

and said they are divinely blessed and can do no wrong.

Nope. Never said that. Now you're engaging in a logical fallacy known as a straw man argument.

You have placed Peter and those who have really been Popes above Jesus.

Nope. Another straw man.

You have defended the teaching that all Non-Catholics are going to hell.

Never said that. No such doctrine exists.

Then you said that everyone is really a Catholic even if they don't know it.

Now that is kind of true. At last, you tell the truth.

Although I don't claim to understand all of the Bible I know that all major points in it is recorded more than once.
Yet you prefer to use standalone scriptures use interpretation defies all logic as your proof of those things which is anything but Biblical.

Not true.

To compare you to the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day might actually be insulting to them.
Posted by tonyrobinson 2 months ago
tonyrobinson
Okay that is it. Nothing you have ever said makes any sense. It is not logical or Biblical and yet you claim some scripture that has nothing to do with the topic backs up your claim that is contradicted through out the entire Bible.
Your assertions from scripture is so far from truth and common sense that I wonder if you are not just making it all up trying to sound stupid.
To say your interpretation are stretching and twisting the definition of words and extrapolating completely irrelevant things from them would be a huge understatement.
I think I could say the sky is blue and you would point out a scripture referencing the weather to claim I am wrong. You have defended murderous Popes and said they are divinely blessed and can do no wrong. You have placed Peter and those who have really been Popes above Jesus. You have defended the teaching that all Non-Catholics are going to hell. Then you said that everyone is really a Catholic even if they don't know it.
Although I don't claim to understand all of the Bible I know that all major points in it is recorded more than once. Yet you prefer to use standalone scriptures use interpretation defies all logic as your proof of those things which is anything but Biblical.
To compare you to the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day might actually be insulting to them.

Good bye and I truly hope that one day you will not be brainwashed and will understand the truth in the scriptures and not just what you are told to believe by those acting as though they are equal to Jesus. Question why you believe something and learn the customs of the time period of the Bible and how that effects the Bible, learn how the scriptures all work together in harmony and not alone.

Again, good bye.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 months ago
dsjpk5
"However there is no reference to any of them forgiving sins
Except John 20:23."

That is the verse whose translation is in question to begin with

No it's not. As I've shown, "forgive" and "remit" are synonymous.

so you are using it as proof of itself? So in this verse who is forgiving the sin of who? As I said there is no reference (as in example) of disciples forgiving the sins of anyone on the Bible

So?

. If they truly had that power and authority then why is it not recorded anywhere in the Bible of them doing so?

How many times does the Bible have to teach something before you accept it? And where does the Bible say it will provide examples of all it's doctrines?

AS for the remit part. I mainly use the KJV and it says remit in it

Which means "forgive".

You probably even support the idea of praying to Mary and the Saints.
"
Of course! Thoroughly biblical."
1Corinthians 12:12-21 and Romans 8:38-39

Romans: 8
38"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39"Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Care to explain how any of that backs up your claim.

Sure. 1 Corinthians 12 says that no part of the body of Christ can say they don't need one another. Romans 8 says that death doesn't separate us from the body. So, just like you can ask those here on Earth to pray for you, you can do the same thing with our departed brothers and sisters.

As with every scripture you quote it is irrelevant to the topic you claim it supports.

Actually, as usual, you don't take the time to investigate the verses.
Neither these two verses nor verse in 1 Corinthians you posted references prayer, Mary or the disciples. So to get that out of those verses you really have to twist the meaning of those verses to the breaking point.

No twisting, just a logical pr
Posted by tonyrobinson 2 months ago
tonyrobinson
"However there is no reference to any of them forgiving sins
Except John 20:23."

That is the verse whose translation is in question to begin with so you are using it as proof of itself? So in this verse who is forgiving the sin of who? As I said there is no reference (as in example) of disciples forgiving the sins of anyone on the Bible. If they truly had that power and authority then why is it not recorded anywhere in the Bible of them doing so?

AS for the remit part. I mainly use the KJV and it says remit in it

You probably even support the idea of praying to Mary and the Saints.
"
Of course! Thoroughly biblical."
1Corinthians 12:12-21 and Romans 8:38-39

Romans: 8
38"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39"Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Care to explain how any of that backs up your claim. As with every scripture you quote it is irrelevant to the topic you claim it supports. Neither these two verses nor verse in 1 Corinthians you posted references prayer, Mary or the disciples. So to get that out of those verses you really have to twist the meaning of those verses to the breaking point.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 months ago
dsjpk5
They were never worshipped,

Neither are priests

or exalted as anything but messengers and never presented themselves as anything else.

Paul referred to himself as having priestly duties in Romans 15:16. So it would appear they considered themselves as more than just messengers.

Look through the book of Acts and the rest of the NT you will see that it contradicts the idea that anyone but God can forgive sins.

Where?

It says Jesus died for the forgiveness of all sins.

No argument, but the question is "how does one receive this forgiveness?"

If your interpretation of that verse is correct why does it make no mention of that anywhere else?

How many times does the Bible have to teach something before you accept it?

When one verse seems to contradict the rest of the Bible obviously that verse is not being translated correctly as the Bible is in complete harmony through all its books.

I don't see where it opposes any part of scripture. Again, I seem to be the only one providing Bible verses.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 months ago
dsjpk5
In reference to John 20:23 Jesus died for the forgiveness of all sins no man or priest can deny that forgiveness.

That's not what the verse says. It says "whatever sins you forgive..." It makes no reference to declaring those who believe in the gospel to be automatically saved. It says they will forgive sins.

I can see how that verse can be used to back up your claim

Thanks for the honesty.

especially how the wording has been changed in some newer translations.

What older translations have "remit"?

However Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins and nobody else has the power and authority to act as God.

No one is acting like God. They're applying the authority given to them by God.

In older translations of the Bible it says "remit" and some newer translations it says "forgive". That newer translation is wrong though. To remit is not the same as to forgive.

It absolutely is. It means to cancel.

re"mit
verb
rəG2;mit/
1.
cancel or refrain from exacting or inflicting (a debt or punishment).

That's what happens when one's sins are forgiven... their debt to God is cancelled... never to return.

No single scripture in the Bible stands by itself. If you look throughout the rest of the NT you will see many instances of the apostles preaching to others.

And?

However there is no reference to any of them forgiving sins

Except John 20:23.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 months ago
dsjpk5
In the OT people did have to have an "intercessor" such as a priest to receive forgiveness of sins. However Jesus is the intercessor to God. The barrier to have that personal relationship with God has been destroyed. When Jesus died on the cross an earthquake occurred and the curtain to the Holy of Holies where only the high priest go into was ripped from top to bottom. That was no accident it was a sign that now all people can enter into the presence of God and no other intercessor besides Jesus is able to forgive us our sins. Everything about the temple is a reference to God and the temple was destroyed for good reason. You obviously don't understand any of that.

I believe I do understand it. I think you read a little too much into it. I would say that what transpired was God's way of saying that temple worship was no longer necessary to approach God.

"Our definition is a saint is someone who is a believer. What's yours?"
Then why do you have other requirements to give others the title.

To which requirements are you referring?

As a said before Matthew 9:8 has nothing to do with what you claim as proof.

Sure it does. It says Go's gave the authority to forgive sins to men (plural).
Posted by dsjpk5 2 months ago
dsjpk5
Again you are being intellectually dishonest by claiming to now understand the meaning of what I said. Those verses are irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

Yes they are relevant. You saying they're not is not an argument unless you can show how they're not. It's real easy to make a claim like that... It's another to demonstrate it.

Are you claiming to not have the comprehension required to understand the context?

No. I'm claiming you're making an empty argument.

"You probably even support the idea of praying to Mary and the Saints.

Of course! Thoroughly biblical."

1Corinthians 12:12-21 and Romans 8:38-39

"IF it is Biblical then you can support it using the Bible and as always you have failed to do so.

You have just now asked me to do so.

know it says Mary will be called blesses by all generations however she has no power to answer prayers.

Just to clarify, we simply ask Mary and the saints to pray for us.

"That's not true. I accept the definition of doctrine you provided. It was you who wouldn't accept your own definition. Remember how the one you presented said nothing about actions???"

Again only the intellectually dishonest can separate actions from believes. We act upon and worship based upon our beliefs otherwise we would not commit those actions.

We sometimes act upon our beliefs. Sometimes we're hypocritical though. That possibility proves they're not the same thing. They may be related, but their not synonymous... As YOUR definition indicates.
Posted by tonyrobinson 2 months ago
tonyrobinson
In reference to John 20:23 Jesus died for the forgiveness of all sins no man or priest can deny that forgiveness. I can see how that verse can be used to back up your claim especially how the wording has been changed in some newer translations. However Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins and nobody else has the power and authority to act as God.
In older translations of the Bible it says "remit" and some newer translations it says "forgive". That newer translation is wrong though. To remit is not the same as to forgive.
No single scripture in the Bible stands by itself. If you look throughout the rest of the NT you will see many instances of the apostles preaching to others. However there is no reference to any of them forgiving sins or being called anything but a messenger of the word. They were never worshipped, or exalted as anything but messengers and never presented themselves as anything else.
Look through the book of Acts and the rest of the NT you will see that it contradicts the idea that anyone but God can forgive sins. It says Jesus died for the forgiveness of all sins. If your interpretation of that verse is correct why does it make no mention of that anywhere else? When one verse seems to contradict the rest of the Bible obviously that verse is not being translated correctly as the Bible is in complete harmony through all its books.
Posted by tonyrobinson 2 months ago
tonyrobinson
"Again, I don't think any part of the Bible is irrelevant."

Again you are being intellectually dishonest by claiming to now understand the meaning of what I said. Those verses are irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Are you claiming to not have the comprehension required to understand the context?

"You probably even support the idea of praying to Mary and the Saints.

Of course! Thoroughly biblical."

"IF it is Biblical then you can support it using the Bible and as always you have failed to do so. I know it says Mary will be called blesses by all generations however she has no power to answer prayers.

"That's not true. I accept the definition of doctrine you provided. It was you who wouldn't accept your own definition. Remember how the one you presented said nothing about actions???"

Again only the intellectually dishonest can separate actions from believes. We act upon and worship based upon our beliefs otherwise we would not commit those actions.

In the OT people did have to have an "intercessor" such as a priest to receive forgiveness of sins. However Jesus is the intercessor to God. The barrier to have that personal relationship with God has been destroyed. When Jesus died on the cross an earthquake occurred and the curtain to the Holy of Holies where only the high priest go into was ripped from top to bottom. That was no accident it was a sign that now all people can enter into the presence of God and no other intercessor besides Jesus is able to forgive us our sins. Everything about the temple is a reference to God and the temple was destroyed for good reason. You obviously don't understand any of that.

"Our definition is a saint is someone who is a believer. What's yours?"
Then why do you have other requirements to give others the title?

As a said before Matthew 9:8 has nothing to do with what you claim as proof.

I
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
dsjpk5csd0033Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture- all points to Pro.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
dsjpk5csd0033Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
dsjpk5csd0033Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
dsjpk5csd0033Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF