Asalamu laekum
I want to know something -- the Trinity that the Christians talk about, especially the Holy Spirit. They say it's not Gabriel but another god. Please tell me in detail so that I can convince my fellow Muslims who this is.
Jazakallah

I'm having a very hard time understanding what you're trying to ask. Can you re-write it so it's clearer?

The Christian God has three "aspects" or Persons --- God the Father who created everything, God the Son who died to take away sins, and God the Holy Spirit who helps us have faith and is with us to help us give love and service to others.

Not all Christians (such as Unitarians) are trinitarians, although most are, and I would guess that many recite 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' without much thought about those three being all God.
Trinity is a Latin word, but the first recorded use of the concept of a triad (group of 3) was in Greek by Theophilus of Antioch about 170 years after the birth of Christ. He wrote
"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity [Τριάδος], of God, and His Word (λόγος or logos), and His wisdom (σοφίᾱ or sophia)."
It wasn't until about 200 years after that that the Trinity was described as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

(In my Episcopal church when I was a child we recited 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,' and I had no idea what the Holy Ghost meant, and was scared.)

I imagine that early Christian theologians were struggling with convincing people (other than Jews) around Italy and Greece of the concept of one god. People who had countless gods and goddesses, household gods, gods for every part of daily life.

The Holy Spirit is not a person and not "another God" it is considered a part of God, a role or part of the entire God.

Less concern over the Holy Spirit and more dicussion of Christ, since until they accept Christ as the Lord and Savior, how the Holy Spirit fits into this , is just a subject for argurement.

There is no real way to explain this to a person who is Muslim since they see it as a false religion and a false God.

Christianity has only one God. But we see him existing in three distinct personages: father, son and holy spirit. One God, three distinct manifestations. Those of us who have devoted our lives to understanding the Christian Bible don't pretend to comprehend how it works, but there are places where the Bible clearly calls all three personages "God" while still affirming that there is only one God. I can only speak for myself: I see the idea clearly taught in the Bible, so I accept it. But I don't pretend to comprehend it.

But if we sin against the Holy Spirit we will not be forgiven in this life nor the one to come.

What, exactly, is that sin?

Theologians have been asking that question for centuries, and nobody can agree on the answer.

Theos, Logos, Sophia

Trinity is the word used to define three Persons having one essesnece or nature yet so perfectly joined they are said to be consubstantial ('of the same substance' in Greek it is homoousios) Trias is first heard in Theophilus of Antioch in Autolycus, book II in his description of the 'luminaries' and creation by "God, and His Word, and His wisdom." At about the same period Tertullian writes, "For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in three." Both Tertullian and Theophilus pass what was given to them from the Apostles to the next generation; a belief in One God, three Persons, and One faith. The issue was settled in the orthodoxy of the Church long before the Nicene Council. St. Athanasius sums the rudiments of the Catholic faith in one Creed. Predominate is the Trinity "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

One cannot compass about God's essence, assuredly no Catholic except the first Catholic daughter and the New Adam ever compassed God. The essence of God can not be known except for those things He reveals. He exists in eternity and it is said "Eternity is nothing else but God Himself" St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 10, 2. 3.

The Holy Spirit is a distinct Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Since God is one substance the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from both Father and Son. Scripturally we find the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, knowledge and wisdom (Sophia) See John 14:16-17; 15:26. The Isaiah said, "the light of Israel shall be for a fire." (Isaiah 10:17) It is "a spirit wise and discerning, a spirit prudent and strong, a spirit of knowledge and of piety" (Isaiah 11:2). The graces we receive from the Holy Spirit are prudence, fortitude, knowledge and piety.


Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report , full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business [Acts 6:3]

The Monarchians believed that the Trintiy was only nominal with each of the Persons described as their operations or manifestations. The Arians denied God was one substance and that Christ was subordinate to the Father. Others
Erred in holding that there are three Divinities, each a separate substance and a separate nature.

Less concern over the Holy Spirit and more dicussion of Christ

I kind of disagree, there is very little discussion about the Holy Spirit these days anyway and I think there should be more emphasis on it, since the Holy Spirit is the one who Jesus talked about the coming of and how the Spirit lives in the world today.
The teaching of Jesus is important but so is the role the Spirit plays in the church today (which is often overlooked)

Simple: God is the creator. Jesus is the son of God and is also God... he God is Jesus in the flesh. We read in The BIBLE JOHN 1:1 "IN THE BENNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH." NOW... Jesus is the Lord and when he walked the Earth he taught us his ways and how to live life by truth. NOW after his death came THE HOLY SPIRIT THOUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS ALWAYS THERE. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS JESUS AND GOD. WHICH LEAD US AND GUIDE US TO LIVE AND HAVE A HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR HEAVENLY FATHER. FATHER SPIRIT SON THREE IN ONE

What, exactly, is that sin?
Theologians have been asking that question for centuries, and nobody can agree on the answer.

Actually there are three responses to the question of 'what is the act against the Holy Spirit not forgiven'. Each nearly equal and all of them are within the pale of orthodoxy. I think all of them revolve around choosing evil or consciously working against God's good for evil's sake. The 'unforgivable' rests in seeking to remain in a state of privation and a rejection of God's charity.

One school of thought has the 'unforgivable' being a certain contempt for the Holy Spirit, it would seem that such a sin would lack fear of God and be 'malice' toward the Holy Spirit.

Another group of seem to suggest that the 'unforgivable' occurs blasphemy in identifying God's good as evil or the work of devil.

The third and my favorite is St. Augustine's sense of the 'unforgivable' by way saying, "He has an unclean spirit". [Cf. Mark 3:30]. Which is to unabashedly persevere in sin as opposed to faith. It's not what is uttered so much as the unclean spirit that motivated the act. The impertinence that seeks evil and not God.

JoeT

Could this, then, be a reference as to why demons appear to be an unforgiven spirit race? They operate continually in blasphemy against God? Something I have never actually thought about to be honest... hmmm...

The unforgivable sin:

Could this, then, be a reference as to why demons appear to be an unforgiven spirit race? They operate continually in blasphemy against God? Something I have never actually thought about to be honest....hmmm....

I do indeed think that demons and devils are the unforgivable race, but then again I don't know a lot about the attributes of demons and devils except that they are repulsed by Mary. I make a point of staying away. However, we are able to look in a mirror or at our neighbors to observe the nature of men.

I think it was St. Augustine's journey looking for the source of evil that best described evil in men. He found that evil was not something added to man rather it was privation of original justice [a state not requiring Salvation]. St. Thomas explains this state best; in men after Adam God withheld original justice which "united the will to God, produced an overflowing of perfection into other powers, namely, that knowledge of truth enlightened the intellect, and that the irascible and concupiscible appetites received direction from reason." [Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo]

Thus through the act of one man we in ignorance we are born without fear of God and we find only Baptism provides salvific grace. Baptism, at least in part, reinstates a portion of original justice although with ignorance and concupiscence still hampered necessitating the graces of salvation.


Original Sin is that men are born without the fear of God and without trust in God, is to be entirely rejected, since it is manifest to every Christian that to be without the fear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an adult than the offence of a recently-born infant, which does not possess as yet the full use of reason, as the Lord says "Your children which had no knowledge between good and evil," Deut 1:39. (Johann Eck, The Confutatio Pontificia, 1530)

Sin has been characterized as a war against God. I would suggest that the unforgivable sin is deliberately turning away from God's charity and continuing the war of sin. The unforgivable are effectively storming heaven by the power of their will with the same malice and impertinence of a warrior seeking to unseat God's good and establish our own evil.

JoeT

HH.

Interesting thought and it makes sense too.

The difference for man is that Jesus died for us... he didn't for demons. Not sure there would ever be forgiveness granted to demon spirits.

The only unforgivable sin is rejecting Jesus as savior which is why I believe that is what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

JoeT,

Just to clarify... do you believe even believers can be guilty of the unpardonable sin?

As Joe pointed out, there are several different ideas about what this "sin" is, and we really have no idea which is correct, or if any of them are. The passages in question are so vague that they're open to a myriad of interpretations. My philosophy is, if you're worried you might have done it, you haven't. If you really had, you wouldn't care. So I suspect that most all of us are reasonably safe!

Dave,

Thing is this has driven a lot of Christians kind of crazy with fear. I mean I heard a pastor say when he was younger he was just sure he had committed this sin. I am SURE the Lord Jesus wouldn't want anyone in fear and torment over this. So I DO believe we can know what it is and there is NO WAY a believer in the Lord could commit it... once saved, always saved. That is my story and I am sticking to it. I believe there is enough scripture to back that up.

The only thing that sends someone to hell this side of the cross is not accepting the Lord Jesus as savior. Best I can tell. I would be willing to believe that blaspheming the HS during the Lord's ministry would be rejecting him as their messiah and walking away in unbelief when he performed miracles. But then again it all comes back to believing who Jesus is. I don't see any way around it. I know I know... you don't like my theology. BUT... I don't like how you think the bible leaves so much up in the air. I think the Lord can and does reveal things that are hard to understand to those who diligently seek him. Am I wrong?

once saved, always saved.
I don't go with that. Christians have free will, and life circumstances might cause someone to turn his back on God. (I think you and I have been down this road before.)

WG

Jesus said:I will NEVER leave you or forsake you. Either he paid for ALL of my sins or he didn't. If he didn't... Yes I can lose my salvation... if he did, I can't. Is it a sin to leave the Lord?YES! But the bible says he paid for ALL of my sins. I used my free will to accept him. I am IN him, he is IN me and I am hidden in God.
If someone denies satan is real does that automatically mean he isn't under his influence and still under his bondage?
He exercised his free will to NOT believe there is a Satan. Does Satan have more power than God? Naaah... I can leave him but he won't leave me. AND the Holy Spirit will woo me back. I don't think many true Christians turn their backs and stay that way the rest of their lives. But even if they did... HE is faithful. What a savior!

I used my free will to accept him.
And we can use that same free will to reject Him.

WG,

He paid for all of my sins... all means all. He is the author and finisher of my faith... I am NOT. Thank heavens. But again, I don't believe there are many TRUE Christians that reject him and walk away for the rest of their lives. There are always exceptions but when you KNOW him, have a relationship with him, how are you going to leave never to return? It would be difficult. Of course if you just had some head knowledge about Christ and never had a personal relationship with him and rejected him... well, it is possible the person was never really saved to begin with.

Interesting you believe we can use free will to reject Christ and He will put us out of His family. However, people can use their free will to reject the notion of Satan and it doesn't take them out of his family. THINK about it.

Interesting you believe we can use free will to reject Christ and He will put us out of His family.
HE doesn't put us out of His family. We could do it.

Scenario: Christian man's daughter is in a horrible car accident. She's hospitalized and struggles to live. He prays constantly for her survival. After a week, she dies. He becomes angry at himself for not praying hard enough and at God for not saving her. He refuses to listen to anyone/Christians who try to help him through this tragedy. He turns his back on God. A year later, on the anniversary of his daughter's death, he kills himself. (Gee, I should write a book!)

Okay, does God look into his heart and hope to see faith in there somewhere? Or the mental/emotional distress caused faith to be clouded by life circumstances, but the faith is still there -- crushed and faint, but there?

WG,

Oh my! I believe with all my heart that man who lost his daughter and committed suicide would be with the Lord Jesus. He paid for all of his sins and just because he stop believing God was Good didn't make it so. He would be with the Father... forever. He will NEVER leave us or forsake us.

WG, take that same man. Say he goes wild instead of depressed. Lets say he sleeps with woman, take drugs to ease the pain. Oh sure, he shows up to church here and there but in general he is steeped in sin. Say that man is killed accidentally from driving drunk... is he any less saved? NO... he would be with the Father. That is my story and I believe it to my core. OUR GOD is GOOD. Salvation has NOTHING to do with us.. he did it all... we only need to accept it FREELY. Freely means FREELY.

A very simple question comes to mind: if I can't do anything to merit RECEIVING salvation, what makes me think I can do something to merit LOSING it? Either grace is apart from works or it's not.

This is more than just an academic question for me. My middle daughter, who was a staunch believer in childhood, has basically turned her back on Christianity. When this change happened, she told me "I don't believe in God any more." Because I understand the nature of grace and God's forgiveness, I was able to respond in a calm voice: "That's okay. He still believes in you." And yes, I firmly believe that.

Amen Dave! Salvation isn't about us... it is about HIM and what HE did. Our part is to believe, and should we fail to keep believing and wander like stupid sheep do... he keeps us. Just like a earthy Daddy would do.

"Once saved, always saved".

It doesn't stand up to a certain kind of logic, but the idea is psychologically valid. Believers will tend to live their lives accordingly. It's true that it can also be seen as a license to sin, but this is very unlikely and surely psychologically INVALID.

On a practical level, I have seen a number of born-agains whose lives have been changed for the good by the simple belief that God is ALWAYS with them no matter what they do, and that He will never abandon them.

It's a powerful belief.

Salvation is a gift...
Generally, gifts arnt taken back.

For example, when God gives us his Holy Spirit as a gift, he doesn't take it away from someone if they later decide to stop going to church.
Ie - if someone received the Holy Spirit and then a year later left church to do their own thing and be caught up in various sins. Now if they had some kind of revelation and came back to the church, repended and so forth, they would not need to receive the Spirit for the 2nd time. Because it was a gift from the first time...

Now if they had some kind of revelation and came back to the church, repended and so forth, they would not need to recieve the Spirit for the 2nd time. Because it was a gift from the first time...
What if they didn't have a revelation and come back to the church?

It is important to back you what you believe with scripture. There is NO WHERE in the bible that suggests the Holy Spirit lives in a believer and then leaves. Quite the contrary. We are sealed with him. He isn't going anywhere. If He can leave us ( which we are clearly told he WILL not) what sin is it that caused his departure. Is it many? If so HOW many? It simply isn't so. He doesn't leave and come back when someone decides to live right. The thought goes against all of what salvation IS and what Jesus DID. He DID it... there is NOTHING left for man to do but believe it. NOTHING. The law taught us that already... we can't DO IT... we never could. Jesus didn't die so that we could believe that and continue to TRY to be good enough. He finished the work and he told us to believe it. Isn't that what the thief on the cross did? HE believed Jesus was who he said he was. Not a good work involved. It is simple and we make it complicated because we do not believe that God is really that good.

It is important to back you what you believe with scripture. There is NO WHERE in the bible that suggests the Holy Spirit lives in a believer and then leaves.
So then what is the sin against the Holy Spirit? A non-believer hardening his heart so that the HS can't come in in the first place? (e.g. Pharaoh)

I ask again, What if they didn't have a revelation and come back to the church?

I ask again, What if they didn't have a revelation and come back to the church?

What if they didn't? What of it?

What if they didn't? What of it?
Is that a sin against the Holy Spirit and is that person consigned to hell? Or does God still claim him as His own?

WG,

we are told we can grieve the Holy Spirit and I am sure he is grieved when we turn away fro the Lord... but he NEVER leaves us or forsakes us.

My personal belief the unpardonable sin is rejecting the Holy Spirit over and over again when a person is presented with the gospel. I also think when the Lord performed all the miracles and people walked away in unbelief THAT too was blaspheming. Just my thoughts though

we are told we can grieve the Holy Spirit and I am sure he is grieved when we turn away fro the Lord... but he NEVER leaves us or forsakes us.
Is. 49:15b,16: Yes, they may forget, yet will I not forget you. Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.

My personal belief the unpardonable sin is rejecting the Holy Spirit over and over again when a person is presented with the gospel. I also think when the Lord performed all the miracles and people walked away in unbelief THAT too was blaspheming. Just my thoughts though
I agree.

"Once saved, always saved".

It doesn't stand up to a certain kind of logic, but the idea is psychologically valid. Believers will tend to live their lives accordingly. It's true that it can also be seen as a license to sin, but this is very unlikely and surely psychologically INVALID.

On a practical level, I have seen a number of born-agains whose lives have been changed for the good by the simple belief that God is ALWAYS with them no matter what they do, and that He will never abandon them.

It's a powerful belief.

‘Once saved always saved is a type of self certified-salvation-obtained-in-the-here-and-now.’ This is a delusional and presumptuous state of euphoric self-justification that simply doesn’t exist. Certitude of salvation:


“For as no pious person ought to doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so each one, when he considers himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension concerning his own grace, since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God. (The Council of Trent Session VI, January, 1547, Pope Paul III)

A salvific faith is always accompanied by hope and charity. Implied in the first half of Romans 3:28 is a faith formed in charity; a faith that moves toward God in hope – the ‘works’ of hope and charity are present in St. Paul’s understanding of justification. As to the second part of the verse “without the works of the law” St. Paul is suggesting that the ritualistic washing pots and pans will not produce faith. "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not."(Hebrews 11:1)

Faith is a virtue of the knowledge of God’s love hoped for but not yet realized. Furthermore, a virtuous faith is formed in charity. Hope is a movement toward, or the vision of a thing not yet realized. We know that hope is forward looking, or the effects of our hope are realized in that future. Once the future object is obtained it is no longer hope, “hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for?” (Roman 8:24) “

Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 10): "By charity I mean the movement of the soul towards the enjoyment of God for His own sake." Cf. John 15:15 (c. St. Thomas, II, II, 23, 1), i.e. friendship.

The nature of charity is:

“Charity is patient, is kind: charity envies not, deals not perversely, is not puffed up, is not ambitious, seeks not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinks no evil: Rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices with the truth: Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

As a consequence charity is required for justification: "Let all your things be done in charity." (1 Corinthians 16:14). Given these definitions of faith, hope, and charity we can conclude the following:


If we have faith alone, we obtain justification in this life (i.e. salvation) then we don’t have a virtuous hope. Given that faith is defined as the substance of things hoped for, and without hope we cannot please God. Obviously this mode of obtaining salvation by faith alone and once-saved-always-saved becomes an absurdity as faith is always a lifelong struggle to persevere in hope and charity.


If we have faith alone and we have obtained justification with certitude, not only is it not faith alone, it becomes a justification obtained without hope. This kind of faith is obtained in the great Divine lottery of predestination. This is another absurdity given that faith is formed without hope cannot be a realized as salvation in the here and now.


If we have faith alone and somehow overcoming the previous objections, we are still left with an absurdity as that faith is formed in charity. And when added to ‘faith alone’ it is no longer a homogeneous salvation that saves in the here and now.


Once-saved-always-saved does indeed fail logic.

JoeT

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
What if they didn't? What of it?
Is that a sin against the Holy Spirit and is that person consigned to hell? Or does God still claim him as His own?

Not even. I already pointed out that we don't know what this sin against the Holy Spirit is; anything we come up with is nothing but speculation. And again, I can't do anything to merit gaining salvation; how egotistical is it to think I can do anything to lose it? We're told that there will be rewards of some kind, and that some will get in by the skin of their teeth. But we don't see anybody actually losing salvation and ending up consigned to hell.

I have no idea what this unforgivable sin is, but I still tend to believe that if I'm worried I might have committed it, I undoubtedly haven't. Because if I had, I wouldn't care. I would be that far gone. Honestly, I couldn't say for sure that anyone in all of human history has ever committed it; it's possible Jesus was speaking hypothetically. John tells us there is a sin that leads to death, but not to hell.

Ultimately, I choose to shrug my shoulders about topics like this one, and go back to trying to focus on living the part that I DO understand.

Joe,
I don't care what popes or Augustine or councils or anybody else says. John 5:24 says the one who hears Jesus' words and believes in the One who sent him, HAS eternal life and SHALL NOT come into condemnation, but HAS PASSED from death to life.

These things are all stated as accomplished facts, a done deal. It would seem that your authorities are at odds with Jesus himself. Guess who I'm going with?

Joe,
I don't care what popes or Augustine or councils or anybody else says. . .

That's unfortunate. Those who hear His Apostles and their successors truly hear Christ.

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.Luke 10:16

JoeT

Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Joe,
I don't care what popes or Augustine or councils or anybody else says. . .
That's unfortunate. Those who hear His Apostles and their successors truly hear Christ.

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.Luke 10:16


I hear the apostles through their writings. But I do not believe they had any "successors." Once the eyewitnesses passed off the scene, that was it for apostleship in the Peter-James-John sense. Beyond that, my view carries just as much authority as Augustine's or anyone else's. So does ClassyT's, yours, and all the rest of us. I don't buy apostolic succession. Looking at the history of the church, that idea was little more than a power grab. But we could go around and around about that all day and all night. I would rather see you deal with the verse in John that I mentioned.

I hear the apostles through their writings. But I do not believe they had any "successors." Once the eyewitnesses passed off the scene, that was it for apostleship in the Peter-James-John sense.
That's it? Do you think Divine Justice rewards by throwing you off like a used snot rag? Nor does it make much sense. Only four gospels were written and only two of them by the original TWELVE. Consequently, what you do have in the way of the bible is at best second hand from the Apostles, third generation from Christ. In spite of the fact that you think Christ came just for you, He came for all of mankind; inviting them to friendship by partaking of His sacrament, i.e. the Catholic Church, originally known as 'The Way'.



Beyond that, my view carries just as much authority as Augustine's or anyone else's.And such a limited view too, completely devoiced from the Divine Church's history and doctrine. It must be lonely, just you and what you think is Christ.


So does ClassyT's, yours, and all the rest of us.?


I don't buy apostolic succession.

Its not for sale.


Looking at the history of the church, that idea was little more than a power grab.

And such a limited view makes you a poor judge for the Saints.


But we could go around and around about that all day and all night. I would rather see you deal with the verse in John that I mentioned.

I would be happy to discuss the verse of John if I knew what it was.

JoeT

Do you think Divine Justice rewards by throwing you off like a used snot rag?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. The canon of the New Testament finished with the passing of the apostles, and there is nothing in their writings to indicate that they had any kind of successors. I don't give a hoot what the Catholic church says, because history shows they're as corrupt and fallible as any other church that has ever come along.


And such a limited view too, completely devoiced from the Divine Church's history and doctrine. It must be lonely, just you and what you think is Christ.

First, there is no "Divine Church." That's a doctrine that said church made up out of whole cloth in order to control people. Obviously, in some instances it's working. Second, it's not lonely at all. Jesus is my best friend, and I know what he's like because his closest friends told me what I needed to know. Too bad that's not enough for you, because your "saints" often contradict each other, as do the edicts that get handed down from Rome. The laity can have the cup. No they can't. Yes they can. Do this before you receive the host. Oh wait, that's not enough, now do this afterward. Hardly "Divine." More like "typical human jumble." You're welcome to believe it's divine if you want to, but that doesn't make it so. Nor does them claiming it make it so. There are many reasons the Reformation happened, and the Catholic church was at the heart of all those reasons.


I would be happy to discuss the verse of John if I knew what it was.

It's right there in the post you responded to earlier. It's not my fault you didn't read it.

Incidentally, I don't know where you got that idea that the gospels and the rest of the NT are third-generation from Christ, but it's dead wrong. Two were written by apostles, the other two by companions of apostles. That was the criterion that your precious Catholic church used to include them in the canon in the first place. Maybe you should pay attention to the church councils, too.

Incidentally, I don't know where you got that idea that the gospels and the rest of the NT are third-generation from Christ, but it's dead wrong. Two were written by apostles, the other two by companions of apostles. That was the criterion that your precious Catholic church used to include them in the canon in the first place. Maybe you should pay attention to the church councils, too.

The word given by Christ, first generation
The Christ's word taught by the Apostles, second generation
The word taught by the Apostle's successors, third generation.

Three generations. And the only reason you have those words in writing today is because of the Catholic Church. Scripture is a part of Catholic Sacred Tradition. And the meaning of those words is kept as true today as it was for 'The Way' by the Catholic Church. Yes, indeed the Catholic Church is precious.

Christ didn't come to write a book, that's obvious as He didn't leave one. He came so that we could partake His Sacraments thereby becoming members of His Body.

JoeT

The word given by Christ, first generation
The Christ's word taught by the Apostles, second generation
The word taught by the Apostle's successors, third generation.

This is so artificial I have no words. And again, the apostles had no successors.


Christ didn't come to write a book, that's obvious as He didn't leave one. He came so that we could partake His Sacraments thereby becoming members of His Body.

You won't find sacraments in the Bible, either. That's another artificial construct.

This is so artificial I have no words. And again, the apostles had no successors.Maybe you don't recall, in the Scriptures they are called Bishops.



You won't find sacraments in the Bible, either. That's another artificial construct.The Sacraments are ordained by Christ as a visual sign of graces received. Each is Scriptural. If you are a Sola Scriptorist, then you should hold to the Sacraments. Sacred Scripture isn't an artificial construct.

JoeT

Maybe you don't recall, in the Scriptures they are called Bishops.

First, nothing in the Bible suggests that anyone is any kind of successor to the apostles.

Second, "bishop" as defined by the Catholic church is not a biblical term.

First, nothing in the Bible suggests that anyone is any kind of successor to the apostles.

Second, "bishop" as defined by the Catholic church is not a biblical term.

There is a good example of succession in Acts 1:21-26 where Joseph and Justus were appointed.

The office of Bishop is discussed in four locations, 1 Timothy 3:1; 1 Timothy 3:2;Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 2:25. And on several occasions 'Saint' is used to signify a Bishop. The office of Bishop is conferred by laying on of hands in 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14.

For generations the Bishops kept Christ's teachings pure without benefit of Scripture, simply by word of mouth. The Catholic Tradition of apostolic succession keeps and maintains the original intent of Christ's Word.


JoeT

There is a good example of succession in Acts 1:21-26 where Joseph and Justus were appointed.

Um, maybe you should read it again. Joseph and Justus were the same person. The other candidate was Matthias, and he's the one who was chosen. But more important, what were the criteria for being the successor to Judas?

Acts 1:21-22
"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

So, apostolic succession requires 1. Someone who was with them the whole time, 2. Someone who was there for John's ministry, 3. Someone who actually saw the Lord after he rose, and 4. Someone who can personally testify as a witness to the resurrection. How many of your successors through church history meet these guidelines?

Furthermore, if we read on in the book of Acts, we notice several things. For one, Matthias is never mentioned again. For another, we never actually see the Lord sanctioning this move. Why? Because he had his own replacement: Paul. And none of the apostles or Paul are ever called anything resembling bishops, so this passage has nothing to do with it anyway.


The office of Bishop is discussed in four locations, 1 Timothy 3:1; 1 Timothy 3:2;Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 2:25. And on several occasions 'Saint' is used to signify a Bishop. The office of Bishop is conferred by laying on of hands in 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14.

I'll treat the most obvious one first. 1 Timothy 1:6 says "Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk." I suppose I could ask if that's a Freudian slip, but I'll try to be nice ;-) Anyway, I think either you're a little confused or your source is.

1 Tim 4:14 never mentions the word "bishop" or any of its cognates. The laying-on of hands in this passage refers to his spiritual giftedness, and has nothing at all to do with any kind of office.

I Timothy 3:1, 2 and Titus 1:7 all use the same word, "episkopos." It means "overseer." When we take the commands to Timothy and Titus that surround this word into account, it's obvious what this "office" is: pastor. Shepherd of the local congregation. That's all. No wider scope, no special authority, just the church's primary teacher/preacher.

And I'm amazed that you included 1 Peter 2:25, since that is obviously talking about Jesus, the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls. This is a good example of how not to use a concordance.

The first verses of Timothy and Titus tell us what those men's jobs were: they were special emmissaries from Paul, sent to specific places to deal with specific problems. They did not hold any "office" in any church, nor where they in any way "successors" to Paul. They were trouble-shooters sent in to deal with specific occasions. There is no biblical office of "bishop." In reality, "Bishop" is a much later, artificial construct that got applied to this word so some people could justify their desire for power. But again, it is not a biblical term, and the office as practiced by the Catholic church has nothing to do with the word's use in the New Testament. Let's face it: they made up the whole hierarchy thing out of whole cloth. There is nothing anywhere in the Bible to justify it.


For generations the Bishops kept Christ's teachings pure without benefit of Scripture, simply by word of mouth.

Wrong again, Joe. The church had written documents within less than a generation of Jesus, especially the letters of Paul. There are some historical and linguistic hints that Mark may have been written as early as AD 45 or so. The documents were there, and the churches were in constant communication with each other. "Hey, we got a letter from Paul. Want a copy?" "Sure! And the church in the next town could use one, too." NOTHING was preserved "simply by word of mouth" for "generations." The plethora of ancient copies of the NT books that we have prove that this statement is just wrong in all of its particulars. And by the way, the Eastern Orthodox church preserved a lot more of the NT books in much better condition than the Catholic church in the west did. Look it up under basic New Testament textual criticism. I don't know who told you this stuff about word-of-mouth preservation, but they're probably going to try and sell you some oceanfront property in Nebraska while they're at it.


The Catholic Tradition of apostolic succession keeps and maintains the original intent of Christ's Word.

Right. That's why the current pope is offering indulgences in exchange for following him on Twitter, right? Because Jesus definitely talked about that. Remind me again what he said about indulgences? Oh, right. NOTHING. This keeping of "the original intent of Christ's Word" is why the famous Renaissance document "Julius Exclusus," usually attributed to Erasmus, includes an exchange like this one:

Peter: Why did you start those wars?

Julius: I needed the money to support my sons.

Peter: What! A pope with wives and sons?

Julius: No wives, just sons.

And we know it was true. The Catholic church has preserved its own traditions, nothing more. And the vast majority of those traditions have nothing whatsoever to do with "the original intent of Christ's Word".

Let's face it. The Bible knows nothing of the majority of Catholic teachings, including church hierarchies, popes, bishops, indulgences, succession or any of the rest. You are free to hold those beliefs and accept your church's authority to tell you to hold them, but don't try to claim that they are biblically based, because they aren't.

As I read I understand the Holy Spirit being Christ in us and guiding us in His way. That is what helps us understand what we need to understand. Without Him we are not as you say, saved.

Freeman,

What do you mean?. "as you saved not saved".

Not trying to argue ( or maybe I am) but It is the bible that coined the term "SAVED".

Let me ask you... do you believe someone can be saved and know it until the day his heart stops and ceases to breathe? Just a question, trying to understand your theology.

I believe that once a person is truly converted ( changed) they will not be in danger of completely falling away from God. Sure, people will continue to sin, but forgiveness is not far away.

But I believe that some feel that they may have been saved and have not. God only knows.

I Cor. 10:12, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”

I believe that there are those who believe that they are OK in the sight of God but when it comes down to real persecution they need to be careful or they could fall. ( Scripture above)

Freeman4,

In the book of John he clearly tells us that our spirit bears witness with his that we are his. NO... God isn't the Only one that knows. We too can know because it isn't about what we do, it is about what we believe and who we are after we believe.

Freeman4,

In the book of John he clearly tells us that our spirit bears witness with his that we are his. NO...God isn't the Only one that knows. We too can know because it isn't about what we do, it is about what we believe and who we are after we believe.

It will not be very long until we will all experience some drastic changes in this Nation and world. But those who are so engulfed in their own little world of religious belief's will soon be shaken to the reality of what the truth is.

Our Nation is a special Nation to God and He is angry because we have forgotten Him and have gone to pagan gods and belief. If one can not see this coming then I do question the spiritually of some individuals. Time will tell and soon.

It will not be very long until we will all experience some drastic changes in this Nation and world.
Such as?

Such as?

We are now on the verge of WW 111. We are going to witness a Comet, a sign that something big is in the process and that the Man of sin is soon to appear.

Comet Ison will appear and could be as large as the Moon to our sight in October and November.

Our nation is on the verge of a state of Captivity and will be accomplished from within. In fact Russian troops are here now and they will be used for crowed control at various attraction. That is just a few of the things that will happen and soon.

We are now on the verge of WW 111. We are going to witness a Comet, a sign that something big is in the process and that the Man of sin is soon to appear.

Comet Ison will appear and could be as large as the Moon to our sight in October and November.

Our nation is on the verge of a state of Captivity and will be accomplished from within. In fact Russian troops are here now and they will be used for crowed control at various attraction. That is just a few of the things that will happen and soon.
And you know all this how?

Look, anybody who seriously believes in the Bible knows things are coming. Things will change. However, you're wording makes it sound like if we don't believe that these things are IMMEDIATELY coming upon America, well then we just don't know anything about salvation.

Just because I'm not guaranteeing the Anit-Christ and the false prophet are to rise in the next few weeks doesn't mean I don't know my place in Christ.

Freeman, it seems that every time you get backed into a corner with scripture or common sense you quickly change the subject or add something that really has nothing to do with what anybody was talking about.

If you have trouble answering most of the questions people shoot at you, you might want to think about your doctrine some.

Seriously? You're freaking out about another Kohoutek-style comet, that may not even survive its trip around the sun? The orbital elements we have right now tell us it could swing around and come back our way, or it could plunge into the sun. But let's switch to reality for just a moment: a comet is a comet. It's a dirty snowball wandering around in space. Nothing more. No omen, no significance unless, like me, you're an astronomy buff. You know what a comet signals? It signals that there's a comet up there! That's it. If that's what has you all worried, relax. Comets are meaningless, at least theologically speaking. And if this one turns out to be the same kind of non-event that Kohoutek was, we'll all be laughing about it soon anyway.

Seriously? You're freaking out about another Kohoutek-style comet, that may not even survive its trip around the sun? The orbital elements we have right now tell us it could swing around and come back our way, or it could plunge into the sun. But let's switch to reality for just a moment: a comet is a comet. It's a dirty snowball wandering around in space. Nothing more. No omen, no significance unless, like me, you're an astronomy buff. You know what a comet signals? It signals that there's a comet up there! That's it. If that's what has you all worried, relax. Comets are meaningless, at least theologically speaking. And if this one turns out to be the same kind of non-event that Kohoutek was, we'll all be laughing about it soon anyway.

I am not worried , I am just giving out information and if one does not want to accept that , that is their choice. I will continue to do so because weather you believe it or not one who understands about what is going to happen is to help in giving warning. God is not going to verbally give it out.

It is OK for someone like Billy Graham to give warnings but when someone who people think is someone who does not know anything, they say he don't know what he is talking about and it is because they don't know what he is talking about. That is exactly what they thought about Jesus Christ. I don't feel bad at all, just doing what he did, what he commanded to be done.

When one does not know who they are how can they expect to know what is going to take place.

Guess what: many, many of us have also said that Billy Graham is way off with predictions and stuff. Status is nothing. Truth is everything. And you're still way off.

Remember The Bible Code? He had a thing about comets, too; somehow he found Comet S/L9 in his code, as if that was some big revelation that had an impact on human history. But guess what: except as a fascinating phenomenon for amateur astronomers like me who used our telescopes to observe the holes that were ripped in Jupiter's atmosphere, the event was meaningless. It had exactly zero effect on Earth, and we wouldn't even have known about it except for the invention of the telescope a few hundred years ago.

Once again: comets are dirty snowballs. There's a gazillion of them out there, and every so often one of their orbits brings them within view. Big deal. They mean exactly squat in terms of any effect on human history. I like to look at them. But no one who really understands the Bible attributes any spiritual or historic significance to them.

It is OK for someone like Billy Graham to give warnings but when someone who people think is someone who does not know anything, they say he don't know what he is talking about and it is because they don't know what he is talking about. That is exactly what they thought about Jesus Christ. I don't feel bad at all, just doing what he did, what he commanded to be done.

when one does not know who they are how can they expect to know what is going to take place.

Large personalities are not always right and I have no issue with regular everyday people being used by God. I see it in our church all the time... word's of wisdom and prophecy, etc...

However, I also judge a tree by it's fruit and most of what you have said has no scriptural support. I'm not judging your salvation one bit... I am, however judging your accuracy in regards to "things to come".

Look, anybody who seriously believes in the Bible knows things are coming. Things will change. However, you're wording makes it sound like if we don't believe that these things are IMMEDIATELY coming upon America, well then we just don't know anything about salvation.

Just because I'm not guaranteeing the Anit-Christ and the false prophet are to rise in the next few weeks doesn't mean I don't know my place in Christ.

Freeman, it seems that every time you get backed into a corner with scripture or common sense you quickly change the subject or add something that really has nothing to do with what anybody was talking about.

If you have trouble answering most of the questions people shoot at you, you might want to think about your doctrine some.


I am not he one having trouble, when toes are stepped on people do not like it. As for me I am doing what God has in store for me. You see, I know what is going to happen and you are trying to reason it away, hoping it won't be that way. Sounds just like the Pharisees, they did not believe.

I know what is going to happen
And when it doesn't happen, you too will slink away, just like Harold Camping and all the others have done. Wikipedia has a nice chart on all the failed end-of-the-world predictions over the past centuries.

WG,

I told Dave... Freeman4 almost makes me miss Headstrongboy.

Freeman4,

Do not mean to be insulting... but what IF you really are misguided? I am a Christian for SURE Freeman4, and I am telling you... your heart might be in the wrong place.. but you are deceived and badly. Sorry

WG,

I told Dave...Freeman4 almost makes me miss Headstrongboy.

Freeman4,

do not mean to be insulting...but what IF you really are misguided? I am a Christian for SURE Freeman4, and I am tellin ya....your heart might be in the wrong place..but you are deceived and badly. sorry

Time will soon tell who is right.

Time will soon tell who is right.
Headstrongboy assured us the end of the world would be on a certain date (over two years ago), and he would come back to apologize if he was wrong. The world didn't end, and we never saw him again.

Time will soon tell who is right.

That is not an answer to her question. Please answer.

That is not an answer to her question. Please answer.

What I am saying is the way events are shaping up and the individuals in control of our Government, we are very close for the return of Jesus Christ within our life time.

Comet Ison will appear and could be as large as the Moon to our sight in October and November.And? So?

I get the feeling we're bring trolled.

If I remember correctly headstrongboy was a Camping follower.

If I remember correctly headstrongboy was a Camping follower.
Yep! And Camping had apologized, said he miscalculated.

Acts 1:21-22
"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

So, apostolic succession requires 1. Someone who was with them the whole time, 2. Someone who was there for John's ministry, 3. Someone who actually saw the Lord after he rose, and 4. Someone who can personally testify as a witness to the resurrection. How many of your successors through church history meet these guidelines?

Furthermore, if we read on in the book of Acts, we notice several things. For one, Matthias is never mentioned again. For another, we never actually see the Lord sanctioning this move. Why? Because he had his own replacement: Paul. And none of the apostles or Paul are ever called anything resembling bishops, so this passage has nothing to do with it anyway

Your requirements for Apostolic succession are misconstrued. The scene in these verses is the continuance of the Apostolic Tradition established by Christ in building His Church. What's being suggested is that Christ came, pronounced that He would build His Church on Peter, the rock, and then promptly abandon His Church ascending to heaven? Nor is does reason allowing us to accept that Christ would allow His Church to die out as the original Twelve died one by one. What is seen in these verses is the president for establishing the episcopate. Keeping this tradition alive is in part the purpose of the author.

We see in Acts 20:28 the episcopate is to "take heed to . . . the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops . . . which he hath purchased with his own blood." These are the episkopos or curators, guardians, of the faith. Their role is to 'feed' His sheep and to maintain the 'true' Gospel. This is a living Church from the beginning from her consecration, when there was no Scripture, a Kingdom not 'stuck' in a BOOK but journeying through the real world with the power of a real faith.


I'll treat the most obvious one first. 1 Timothy 1:6 says "Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk." I suppose I could ask if that's a Freudian slip, but I'll try to be nice ;-) Anyway, I think either you're a little confused or your source is.
The confusion is suggesting 1 Timothy 1:6 as if it added anything to an empty argument.

1 Tim 4:14 never mentions the word "bishop" or any of its cognates. The laying-on of hands in this passage refers to his spiritual giftedness, and has nothing at all to do with any kind of office.

Timothy, a Bishop, is receiving instructions in chapter 4. St. Paul warns him about heretics such as the Gnostics, the Marcionites prominate doing the devil's work just years after the passion. Furthermore, Timothy is to be a pious godliness in all things. As such, this verse has everything to do with the episcopate.


I Timothy 3:1, 2 and Titus 1:7 all use the same word, "episkopos." It means "overseer." When we take the commands to Timothy and Titus that surround this word into account, it's obvious what this "office" is: pastor. Shepherd of the local congregation. That's all. No wider scope, no special authority, just the church's primary teacher/preacher.

The monarchical episcopate originates in the New Testament as the ruling class of the faithful in Christ's Kingdom. It can be found in place with the same roles it holds today by the middle of the second century. That becomes obvious in the example of the See of Rome. To ignore the "episkopos" we need to ignore the first four Bishops of Rome: St. Peter (32-67), St. Linus (67-76), St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88), St. Clement I (88-97)


And I'm amazed that you included 1 Peter 2:25, since that is obviously talking about Jesus, the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls. This is a good example of how not to use a concordance.

I shouldn't be so amazed since you've rewritten the meaning of Scripture to suite your own predilection. The obviousness you see is a misreading. This verse is not of Christ the Shepherd, by the shepherd Bishops He left for our guardianship.


The exhortation again is derived from the example of his Master, and what he means is this; as He had done, so ought ye to do, for for this cause He “witnessed” (1P 2,21), that we might tread in His steps. (Chrysostom 1 Tm 1801)


The first verses of Timothy and Titus tell us what those men's jobs were: they were special emissaries from Paul, sent to specific places to deal with specific problems.
No he doesn’t, in 1 Timothy the first Chapter is salutations, blessings, and reminder of His role as Bishop. In the second chapter St. Paul that prayers should be said for all men, that God's plan is for the salvation of all. In the third chapter we see St. Paul giving instruction for selecting clergy. In this chapter we hear that the Church is the living pillar of truth.


They did not hold any "office" in any church, nor where they in any way "successors" to Paul. They were trouble-shooters sent in to deal with specific occasions. There is no biblical office of "bishop." In reality, "Bishop" is a much later, artificial construct that got applied to this word so some people could justify their desire for power. But again, it is not a biblical term, and the office as practiced by the Catholic church has nothing to do with the word's use in the New Testament. Let's face it: they made up the whole hierarchy thing out of whole cloth. There is nothing anywhere in the Bible to justify it.
The office of the Bishop was well established in Scripture with the independence and duties of a unified office by 150 AD. As we hear from St. Irenaeus, St. Ignatius of Antioch and Pope Clement I who was said to have been appointed by St. Peter.

Without an established episcopate before St. Peter is crucified you cannot explain the See of Rome; that is unless one ignores truth..

Joet.

You called Timothy a "bishop" several times. Show me a single place where either of the letters calls him that.

You talk about me reading the Scriptures through my own lenses. I think you're projecting. You keep pulling up ecclesiastical offices such as bishop, which didn't actually develop until a good century or so later, and reading them back into Paul's simple statements. I repeat: neither Timothy nor Titus is ever called a bishop in any of these writings. I don't care what Chrysostom or someone else centuries later said. Show me this word in the biblical text. And I don't mean an anachronistic later translation. I mean in the actual Greek text of Paul's writings. Let's see it.

Dave,

I agree. BUT then many Catholic's say Peter was the first pope. We add way too much to scripture.

GrumpyJoe,

You know I still love you... sorry. :( I rarely agree with you. I'm sure that suites you just fine. Lol :)