The one about how we came to exist, and why we are here. I tend take the scientific approach to those type of questions.
|
The one about how we came to exist, and why we are here. I tend take the scientific approach to those type of questions.
We do not have any passages that specifically tell us that anyone who does not understand salvation will go to heaven, but on the flip side, I have yet to see a passage that says they will go to hell. But there are a few things that are indications to most Christians, including me, that anyone who does not have the ability to understand what they must do to receive salvation will indeed go to heaven, like children and metally handicapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by EIFS EXPERT
Perhaps the best indication of babies going to heaven is in 2 Samuel 12:21-23. David committed adultry and it resulted in a child. God sent the prophet Nathan to tell David that because of his sin God was going to take the child in death. This grieved David and so he began to fast and pray to God to spare his child. God took the child anyway and when the child died David stopped his grieving and fasting. This is where the scripture I am going to quote comes in at...
(21)"Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? Thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. (22) And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live? (23) But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."
The bolded words seem to indicate that David knew his child was in heaven as he said he would see the child again. David also seemed comforted by this as he stopped his fasting and mourning.
The other thing is that God loves us. He is also just, and so I have much faith that people who do not have the ability to understand salvation will be admitted to heaven because God is loving and just.
Yes, it does. It is essentially an introduction to Baptism. An explanation to the reason for Baptism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No. I disagree with your interpretation. He does not equate flesh and water but contrasts, flesh and Spirit.Quote:
Yes it is clear, but you appear to have missed what it says about the flesh and water.
John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
NKJV
Anyone who knows anything about birth knows that we are born through water. After the water breaks, the child is born.
That is why water is such a rich symbol for birth. And that is why Jesus says one must be born of WATER and Spirit. Because the water is a given and the difference between being a man of flesh and a man of God is that one must be born again of Spirit through the waters which Jesus sanctified in His own Baptism.
Quote:
Simply saying "nope" is not convincing when scripture says otherwise.
.Quote:
ditto
I said, "nope" because I had previously addressed and rebutted your statements. I don't see a need for me to repeat it. See message #54.
Jesus said, if they believe and are baptized they will be saved. If they don't believe they are condemned. I have already explained how that expresses a requirement.Quote:
Nowhere does scipture say that it is efficacious and necessary for salvation.
And again, the symbolic aspect of Baptism is not in question. However, Baptism symbolizes a reality. Therefore it is efficacious and necessary.Quote:
Indeed if you read about why we bapgtize in scripture, and it source from the OT, you will see that it has always been symbolic, and scripture always speaks of it as symbolic.
Jesus made it a requirement for Christians. It was not a requirement for Jews.Quote:
If it was essential for salvation, then surely you could show us where, and surely you could expl;ain how people could be saved in scripture before water baptism - a point that I have raised a few times and is yet to be addressed.
It's the same Scripture we are discussing.Quote:
Claiming it does not make it so. Show us the scripture!
Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
Note, we are baptized into Christ Jesus because we are baptized into His death. No denial here of a reality.
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Again, no denial of the efficacy of Baptism but a confirmation that we are buried with Him in Baptism so that we might walk with Him in glory.
5 For if we have been united together i
Notice, we are united together. No denial of efficacy.
n the likeness of His death,
Here one aspect of the symbolic nature of Baptism is explained. It is the symbol of His death. But the symbol unites us as previously explained.
certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
And here the symbolic nature of Baptism as new birth is explained. We are born to new life as Jesus was born to New Life in His Resurrection.
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
Here again, the efficacy of Baptism is confirmed and the symbolism as Crucifixion with Him is reiterated. Note that after Baptism we should no longer be slaves to sin.
Please explain how the words "Baptism now saves us" denies the efficacy of Baptism?Quote:
his is going to be useless to discuss this with you if you deny the definitions of English words.
Huh? Any symbol worth its salt is efficacious. As I'm driving down the highway I see a sign which says, "Memphis 50 miles.". If Memphis is not 50 miles away then the symbol is worthless. But if it is, then it is efficiently and effectively describing a reality.Quote:
An "efficacious symbol" is a non-scriptural oxymoron.
In the same way, the water poured over our flesh is a symbol of the new birth in our soul. It is efficacious.
Scriptures says,Quote:
Since I reject the CCC, as do most denominations, and since it is not scripture, quoting it will not move this discussion forward.
1 Peter 3 15 But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.
It doesn't say, quote Scripture. These explanations are as much for those who are reading them yet not participating as they are for you.
If you wish to disregard the Catechism, so be it. I reserve the right to quote any authority I consider relevant.
So will I. God's word says:Quote:
I'll stick with what God's word says.
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Please do so. I will here quote what Jesus said about those who believe in Him yet refuse to do the Father's will:Quote:
But is does indeed because scripture ONLY says that baptism is symbolic and says in any places (and I'd be glad to quote several if you wish) that we are saved if we simply believe in Jesus as our Saviour.
Matthew 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
It is not as though those verses were written in a vacuum. Belief in Christ entails obedience to His Word.
Please explain because I'm certain I rebutted your statement effectively.Quote:
Not yet - you repeated the same half verse again - taken out of context of the second half.
No it doesn't. It doesn't even mention obedience. However,Quote:
I am still waiting for any verse where Jesus says baptism is required, and if obedience is required, then Rom 3:23 says that we are all without hope.
Romans 1 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name;
Romans 6
16 Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice.
Romans 15 18 For I dare not to speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed,
Sincerely,
It's a simple discussion. I have learned a great deal about my faith in these types of discussions. Don't you ever have disagreements with anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
I don't know what you mean by "pointing out each other's blackness". I haven't felt as though TJ3 has insulted me. I hope I haven't insulted him.
In fact, this is a much different discussion than I had with the atheists on this thread.
Not so. A result is not always caused by the previous action. It is the final consequence of a series. God's grace, belief in God, obedience of faith, baptism, washing away sin, justification, perseverance in faith, salvation..Quote:
It looks to me like you've executed a perfect 180. To say that one thing is the result of another means that the former caused the latter.
It is God who is the cause.
The water washing the body represents the Spirit washing the soul.Quote:
That's different from saying that it symbolizes or represents it.
The water washing the body - the symbolic aspect of Baptism.
The Spirit washing the soul - the reality aspect of Baptism.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Isn't that what you have done as well. Piece together some understanding of life by your experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
However, we have a revelation from God. Why should we ignore it?
Due to length, my response to your last message was broken up into two posts. This is #1 of 2
That does not make sense. An event which happens after the first event does not necessary have anything whatsoever which what was said during the first incident. To say otherwise, you would have demonstrate that is the case by the context of scripture, not just "I said so".Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I accept what Jesus said in his word. You can disagree if you wish.Quote:
He does not equate flesh and water but contrasts, flesh and Spirit.
Precisely why water and flesh are used in conjunction with each other in scripture, and that is why Jesus equated them in John 3:5. That is exactly right. The other reason is because flesh itself is about 75% water.Quote:
John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
NKJV
Anyone who knows anything about birth knows that we are born through water. After the water breaks, the child is born.
#54 is not from you, but perhaps you mean #53 which I refuted in #62.Quote:
I said, "nope" because I had previously addressed and rebutted your statements. I don't see a need for me to repeat it. See message #54.
Grammatically and logically it does not make baptism a requirement. That only works if you take the first half out of context. If the second half has said that he is who is not baptized is condemned (and indeed if you can find that anywhere in scripture), I would agree. But since scripture does not say that, but rather tells us throughout that to believe in Jesus alone will save us, then I must submit to the word of God, not traditions of men.Quote:
Jesus said, if they believe and are baptized they will be saved. If they don't believe they are condemned. I have already explained how that expresses a requirement.
That is not logical. You were okay up to the point where you said that baptism symbolizes a reality. But by being symbolic, that means that it is NOT that reality, and to be efficacious and necessary, it must be that reality, not symbolic of it - by definition.Quote:
And again, the symbolic aspect of Baptism is not in question. However, Baptism symbolizes a reality. Therefore it is efficacious and necessary.
First, I find your differentiation between Jews and Christians offensive. The first Christians were Jews.Quote:
Jesus made it a requirement for Christians. It was not a requirement for Jews.
Second, you are telling us that there are two ways to be saved, contrary to scripture which says that there is only one way.
And BTW, you are wrong. Baptism was a symbolic ritual for the Jews also and it is described as such in the NT. Perhaps you were unaware of that. Baptism was not something new that started in the NT. If you are not familiar with the scripture that speaks of the symbolic nature of Baptism from the OT through NT, let me know and I'd be happy to guide you to it.
Read carefully. This passage argues against your position.Quote:
Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
Note, we are baptized into Christ Jesus because we are baptized into His death. No denial here of a reality.
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Again, no denial of the efficacy of Baptism but a confirmation that we are buried with Him in Baptism so that we might walk with Him in glory.
5 For if we have been united together i
Notice, we are united together. No denial of efficacy.
n the likeness of His death,
Here one aspect of the symbolic nature of Baptism is explained. It is the symbol of His death. But the symbol unites us as previously explained.
certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
And here the symbolic nature of Baptism as new birth is explained. We are born to new life as Jesus was born to New Life in His Resurrection.
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
Here again, the efficacy of Baptism is confirmed and the symbolism as Crucifixion with Him is reiterated. Note that after Baptism we should no longer be slaves to sin.
Rom 6:4-6
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
NKJV
Did you actually die with Christ? No.
Were you actually buried with Christ? No.
The going into the water and coming back up is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ, and we are told that specifically in this passage. The word used in Greek here for "likeness" means the same thing in Greek as it does in English and it refers to the symbolism. There is nothing either stated or implied which goes beyond symbolism for baptism.
It would be easier if you would simply read the posts when I put them up the first time. I dobn't intend to post it a third time, though:Quote:
Please explain how the words "Baptism now saves us" denies the efficacy of Baptism?
1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went
and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the
Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which
a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into
heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been
made subject to Him.
NKJV
We see three things discussed here:
1) Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood
2) Water baptism
3) The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate. First Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins. This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.
an·ti·type n.
- One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
- An opposite or contrasting type.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company. All rights reserved.
This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:
Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized
into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just
as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death,
certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old
man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should
no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV
In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.
But the sign is efficacious at informing you of the reality, it is NOT efficacious at making Memphis 50 miles away.Quote:
Huh? Any symbol worth its salt is efficacious. As I'm driving down the highway I see a sign which says, "Memphis 50 miles.". If Memphis is not 50 miles away then the symbol is worthless. But if it is, then it is efficiently and effectively describing a reality.
Similarly, baptism is symbolic of what has already happened and can be used to show you how it already happened, but it cannot make it happen.
You can indeed. But I want to make you aware that my belief and my doctrine is established upon the word of God, not the word of man.Quote:
If you wish to disregard the Catechism, so be it. I reserve the right to quote any authority I consider relevant.
Okay, let's examine what scripture says about the requirements for our sins to be remitted.Quote:
Please do so.
Matt 26:27-29
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins.
NKJV
Heb 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding
of blood there is no remission.
NKJV
Luke 24:46-47
46 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to
suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
NKJV
Acts 10:43
43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will
receive remission of sins."
NKJV
Matt 26:28
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins.
NKJV
Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. Nowhere in scripture will you find any statement which says the same about water. It is only through the blood of Jesus shed on the cross that we are saved.
Good, now I hope that you are aware that when you cross a line and you make obedience a requirement for salvation, you have put yourself under the law and if you must obey any part of the law perfectly to be save, you must obey it all:Quote:
I will here quote what Jesus said about those who believe in Him yet refuse to do the Father's will:
Matthew 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
It is not as though those verses were written in a vacuum. Belief in Christ entails obedience to His Word.
James 2:10-11
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
NKJV
If it were true that we had to be ffirst obedient to any part of the law to be saved we would all be going to hell because none of us have perfectly obeyed His commandments. That is the essence of the gospel. Because through sin, we all condemned ourselves to hell and had no means by which to pay the penalty for sin, Jesus came to earth as a man to die on the cross and paid the price for us.
Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV
Gal 3:19-25
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the
Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
NKJV
God understands that we as humans will sin - that's why He offers us grace. Of course none of us have perfectly obeyed his commands and God knows this and he tells us through Paul. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23. If it were possible for us to live perfect lives there would be no need for Him to offer us grace. We are saved by grace, but grace is not the only thing that saves us as you seem to believe.
It does not mean that we are to take advantage of grace, not at all, because if we love God, we will seek to be obedient, but we will fail. Scripture shows that man fails through trying to obey the law. That is legalism. That is why Christ came to write the law on our hearts and why the Holy Spirit indwells us, so that we would not be tied to legalistic obedience to the law, but rather we would abide by the spirit of the law.
Does this mean we will do it perfectly? No! Does this mean we should strive to do it perfectly? Yes! If we cannot do it perfectly, then our salvation is dependent upon His grace, not our obedience, or we would lose our salvation every time that we slipped.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness.
NKJV
It is also important to note that prior to salvation, we are subject to the sin nature (desire to sin) and the one thing that we obey prior to that is to receive Jesus as Saviour.
Rom 6:17-18
17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart
that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
NKJV
Prior that that, we do not have the helper, the Holy Spirit, who guides us and helps us to grow to be obedient to God by changing our desires to be consistent with the things of God.
And I yours (#62)Quote:
Please explain because I'm certain I rebutted your statement effectively.
Let's read it together:Quote:
No it doesn't. It doesn't even mention obedience.
Rom 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV
You don't think that sin has anything to do with failing to be obedient?
I am still waiting for you to explain how those saved in Acts 10:47 were saved before being water baptized.
Let me add that I have not felt insulted by De Maria either. Our beliefs are dramatically different, but we can disagree respectfully.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Agreed.Quote:
In fact, this is a much different discussion than I had with the atheists on this thread.
OkQuote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
They are speaking of water and spirit. Baptism is the combination of Water and Spirit as shown when Jesus Himself was baptized. The next thing Jesus does after speaking to Nicodemus is to take the Disciples to baptize in in an area where water is plentiful.Quote:
That does not make sense. An event which happens after the first event does not necessary have anything whatsoever which what was said during the first incident. To say otherwise, you would have demonstrate that is the case by the context of scripture, not just "I said so".
OK. Agree to disagree.Quote:
I accept what Jesus said in his word. You can disagree if you wish.
Agree to disagree.Quote:
Precisely why water and flesh are used in conjunction with each other in scripture, and that is why Jesus equated them in John 3:5. That is exactly right. The other reason is because flesh itself is about 75% water.
Lol! Getting dizzy.Quote:
#54 is not from you, but perhaps you mean #53 which I refuted in #62.
The inference is strong. Jesus says, "believe AND be baptized" not "believe or be baptized".Quote:
Grammatically and logically it does not make baptism a requirement. That only works if you take the first half out of context. If the second half has said that he is who is not baptized is condemned (and indeed if you can find that anywhere in scripture), I would agree. But since scripture does not say that, but rather tells us throughout that to believe in Jesus alone will save us, then I must submit to the word of God, not traditions of men.
It is God who causes the reality. He has assigned water as the sign of that reality. In fact, the word Baptise insinuates water since it means to "wash in water" This was a common practice since before the Baptism of John.Quote:
That is not logical. You were okay up to the point where you said that baptism symbolizes a reality. But by being symbolic, that means that it is NOT that reality, and to be efficacious and necessary, it must be that reality, not symbolic of it - by definition.
I don't know why? Were Jews required to be baptized? They were required to circumcize. If I said, Jews are required to circumcize but Christians are not, would that also offend you?Quote:
First, I find your differentiation between Jews and Christians offensive. The first Christians were Jews.
Yes, the first Christians came of Jewish stock, but they did not remain Jewish. St. John frequently speaks of "the Jews" to differentiate them from the Apostles and Disciples.
John 3 1 And there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
John 5 16 Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath.
There is only one way. Through Jesus Christ. Even the Jews were saved by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. But you and I are speaking of the efficacy of Baptism and whether Jesus Christ requires it for Christains.Quote:
Second, you are telling us that there are two ways to be saved, contrary to scripture which says that there is only one way.
The Jews did not even believe in Jesus Christ did they? Yet it is only by one name we are saved and if they never even heard that name, how were they saved? If they did, they learned of him in their spiritual abode after they died, didn't they? Or do you believe that the just Jews have not entered heaven?
I believe the Just Jews were saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. Even though they never knew him in their earthly lives.
I'm quite familiar. It is the Baptism of Jesus which sanctified the waters and it is His Sacrifice which released the grace to make it an efficacious symbol. Thereafter, the symbolic ritual revealed the reality of what happened in the soul.Quote:
and BTW, you are wrong. Baptism was a symbolic ritual for the Jews also and it is described as such in the NT. Perhaps you were unaware of that. Baptism was not something new that started in the NT. If you are not familiar with the scripture that speaks of the symbolic nature of Baptism from the OT through NT, let me know and I'd be happy to guide you to it.
[quote]Read carefully. This passage argues against your position.
Rom 6:4-6
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
NKJV
Did you actually die with Christ? No.
Were you actually buried with Christ? No.
But do I walk with Christ? Yes.
Am I united with Christ? Yes.
Do I walk in the newness of life? Yes.
Do I believe I died to sin? Yes.
Therefore Baptism is an efficacious sign, revealing in symbol the interior reality which we can't see with our eyes of flesh.
Did I deny this?Quote:
The going into the water and coming back up is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ, and we are told that specifically in this passage.
Yes, but the words "united together" express a fact. He does not say, "as though we were united together". He says "united together". In other words, by this ritual and sign of washing with water which is the likeness of his death, we are "united together" in the Body of Christ. And if we are united together in His death, CERTAINLY we are united together in the same symbol of the likeness of His Resurrection.Quote:
the word used in Greek here for "likeness" means the same thing in Greek as it does in English and it refers to the symbolism. There is nothing either stated or implied which goes beyond symbolism for baptism.
I did. As I said, I already refuted that statement.Quote:
It would be easier if you would simply read the posts when I put them up the first time. I dobn't intend to post it a third time, though:
Correct.Quote:
1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went
and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the
Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which
a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into
heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been
made subject to Him.
NKJV
We see three things discussed here:
1) Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood
Which he unequivocally states, "now saves us".Quote:
2) Water baptism
Correct.Quote:
3) The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Good. Notice the definition. The antitype is foreshadowed by an earlier figure. The flood as I explained is the foreshadow of Baptism because we are saved through water. The flood destroyed the sinful as the water of Baptism washes away our sin.Quote:
This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate. First Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins. This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.
an·ti·type n.
- One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
- An opposite or contrasting type.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin
That is why he goes on to say, "Baptism now saves us".
That is correct. The symbol points to the interior reality.Quote:
This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:
And again, the symbolic aspect of Baptism is not in question. However, the symbol points to a reality.Quote:
Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized
into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just
as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death,
certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old
man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should
no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV
In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Correct. I did not say that the water washed our sin. The water is the sign of God, the Holy Spirit, washing sin from our soul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And I also said it is God who has now tied this symbol to the reality. As you mentioned earlier, Baptism has happened long before even John baptized. Yet it was not efficacious then. It is efficacious now because Jesus said we must be born of water AND Spirit. And we must be baptized to be saved because Jesus said if we believe AND are baptized we will be saved.
God does that. But God tied the ritual of Baptism to birth into new life.Quote:
Similarly, baptism is symbolic of what has already happened and can be used to show you how it already happened, but it cannot make it happen.
I believe mine is also. Jesus Christ did not establish the Church so that we could thumb our nose at Her did He?Quote:
You can indeed. But I want to make you aware that my belief and my doctrine is established upon the word of God, not the word of man.
Indeed it is the Word of God in Scripture which enjoins us to be obedient to the Church and which extolls the Church as the pillar of truth. Therefore, if I believe the Church it is because I am instructed so by Scripture.
Ok.Quote:
Okay, let's examine what scripture says about the requirements for our sins to be remitted.
I believe these literally. The Cup of Communion is truly the Blood of Christ in the guise of wine.Quote:
Matt 26:27-29
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
NKJV
Matt 26:28
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
NKJV
No question. It is because of Jesus sacrifice that the rite of Baptism is efficacious.Quote:
Heb 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
NKJV
Luke 24:46-47
46 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
NKJV
Acts 10:43
43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
NKJV
Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.
Acts Of Apostles 22 16 And now why tarriest thou? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.Quote:
Nowhere in scripture will you find any statement which says the same about water. It is only through the blood of Jesus shed on the cross that we are saved.
I don't make obedience a requirement. God does.Quote:
Good, now I hope that you are aware that when you cross a line and you make obedience a requirement for salvation, you have put yourself under the law and if you must obey any part of the law perfectly to be save, you must obey it all:
James 2:10-11
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
NKJV
And that is correct. If we disobey we are under the law. But if we obey we are not under the law but are free of the law. Let us take the context of St. James teaching:
8 If then you fulfill the royal law, according to the scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; you do well.
This is reference to Christs second great commandment. If we obey this law, we won't break any of the others.
9 But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, being reproved by the law as transgressors.
By respect of persons St. James means if we discriminate between the poor and the rich. Giving the rich more respect than the poor because of their status. If we do that we sin against the second great commandment. Doing so we sin against all the Commandments.
10 And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.
There he says it.
1 For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. Now if thou do not commit adultery, but shalt kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as being to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy. And mercy exalteth itself above judgment. 14 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? 15 And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:
Here he explains that faith is not faith if it is not accompanied by works of love.
In His wisdom, God provided the Sacrament sof Baptism and Reconciliation.Quote:
If it were true that we had to be ffirst obedient to any part of the law to be saved we would all be going to hell because none of us have perfectly obeyed His commandments.
That is correct. But it begs the question, do you believe that all the Jews who died without knowing Christ were condemned to hell?Quote:
That is the essence of the gospel. Because through sin, we all condemned ourselves to hell and had no means by which to pay the penalty for sin, Jesus came to earth as a man to die on the cross and paid the price for us.
And what of those who do not accept Christ even now?
Have we drifted into a discussion of faith and works? I don't mind, but perhaps we should start another thread.Quote:
Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV
That is all true, but have we nullified or destroyed the law?Quote:
Gal 3:19-25
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
NKJV
Matthew 5 17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Romans 3 31 Do we, then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.
What does that mean then? It means that as long as we have faith in Christ and live according to our faith we will do away with sin. If we do not sin we have not destroyed the law but confirmed it.
Romans 6
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein?
Correct.Quote:
God understands that we as humans will sin - that's why He offers us grace.
That is a false assumption. The Church teaches we are saved by the grace of God alone.Quote:
Of course none of us have perfectly obeyed his commands and God knows this and he tells us through Paul. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23. If it were possible for us to live perfect lives there would be no need for Him to offer us grace. We are saved by grace, but grace is not the only thing that saves us as you seem to believe.
Here is where we Catholics differ with the various nonCatholics with whom I've discussed the subject.
They claim that faith alone, that is, a simple declarative statement of faith, is all that is required to save them. I'm assuming this is what you believe.
Whereas, the Catholic Church teaches that it is a complete conversion of life and persevernce in this conversion until the end.
That is correct.Quote:
It does not mean that we are to take advantage of grace, not at all, because if we love God, we will seek to be obedient, but we will fail. Scripture shows that man fails through trying to obey the law. That is legalism. That is why Christ came to write the law on our hearts and why the Holy Spirit indwells us, so that we would not be tied to legalistic obedience to the law, but rather we would abide by the spirit of the law.
Amen!Quote:
Does this mean we will do it perfectly? No! Does this mean we should strive to do it perfectly? Yes!
And by His Grace He has established Sacraments of reconciliation.Quote:
If we cannot do it perfectly, then our salvation is dependent upon His grace, not our obedience, or we would lose our salvation every time that we slipped.
Correct. We believe confession is a Sacrament, a fountain of grace which Jesus established for our reconciliation with His Body.Quote:
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
NKJV
Correct.Quote:
It is also important to note that prior to salvation, we are subject to the sin nature (desire to sin) and the one thing that we obey prior to that is to receive Jesus as Saviour.
Rom 6:17-18
17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
NKJV
Then who guides us to faith?Quote:
Prior that that, we do not have the helper, the Holy Spirit, who guides us and helps us to grow to be obedient to God by changing our desires to be consistent with the things of God.
Sin has everything to do with failing to be obedient. It all began with the first act of disobedience by Adam and Eve.Quote:
Let's read it together:
Rom 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV
You don't think that sin has anything to do with failing to be obedient?
I'm still waiting for you to show that they were saved before Baptism.Quote:
I am still waiting for you to explain how those saved in Acts 10:47 were saved before being water baptized.
Here's the verse:
46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?
If they were washed of sin, why does St. Peter recommend Baptism? Are St. Peter's words not inspired by the Holy Spirit?
In addition, this verse does show that the Holy Spirit moves amongst those who are seeking God and have not accepted Jesus Christ in their lives.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
When I say "pointing out each other's blackness", all I mean is that you both do what you accuse each other of doing, i.e. interpreting scripture according to "your own presuppositions". If neither of you feel insulted by this, good for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Yes, but your central point of disagreement with Tj3 is that you think baptism is required, while he thinks it it's optional, isn't that right? To argue that it's required, means that the result can't happen unless the requirement is met. Saying that God is the cause of the requirement doesn't change the basic argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
So can the Spirit wash the soul even if the water doesn't wash the body?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Yes, they are speaking of water and spirit and Jesus explains the water to be representation of the flesh. You have shown nothing else in that passage nor can you because it isn't there. What he does afterward it not in the same context. I would hate to think of what strange doctrines one could come up with if they interpreted what Jesus or an Apostle did throughout the NT on the basis of the context of what they did afterward.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
There may be an inference in the first half of the verse, but when taken in context, we can see clearly what is meant. Doctrine cannot be properly based on inference of partial verses.Quote:
The inference is strong. Jesus says, "believe AND be baptized" not "believe or be baptized".
Actually, baptism does not just mean wash in water. It CAN mean that, but it also means much more. When it means to wash, it refers more specifically to a ceremonial or ritual washing which, we are told in Hebrews is purely symbolic. Other things that the word used in Greek can mean include:Quote:
It is God who causes the reality. He has assigned water as the sign of that reality. In fact, the word Baptise insinuates water since it means to "wash in water" This was a common practice since before the Baptism of John.
- Identification with someone or something else (i.e. pure symbolism)
- To become the property of
- dye articles
- to be overwhelmed
The offence would be the same if you differentiated between Indians and Christians, and told how Christians differ from Indians. The implication is that you cannot be both.Quote:
I don't know why? Were Jews required to be baptized? They were required to circumcize. If I said, Jews are required to circumcize but Christians are not, would that also offend you?
What is baptism in Judaism? Check out this article which addresses that specific point, from scripture:
http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo...OT-baptism.pdf
They did indeed remain Jewish. I am shocked that anyone would say such a thing. They no more changed their racial extract than a Chinese person or a Caucasian person would upon being saved.Quote:
Yes, the first Christians came of Jewish stock, but they did not remain Jewish. St. John frequently speaks of "the Jews" to differentiate them from the Apostles and Disciples.
What about Paul?
Acts 22:1-4
22:1 "Brethren and fathers, hear my defense before you now." 2 And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent. Then he said: 3 "I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.
NKJV
He remained a Jew. He learned who the Jewish Messiah was an received Him as His Saviour, but He remained a Jew. What about Peter:
Gal 2:14-15
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
NKJV
Note that Peter did not change racially. He remained a Jew.
Gal 3:28Quote:
There is only one way. Through Jesus Christ. Even the Jews were saved by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. But you and I are speaking of the efficacy of Baptism and whether Jesus Christ requires it for Christains.
The Jews did not even believe in Jesus Christ did they? Yet it is only by one name we are saved and if they never even heard that name, how were they saved? If they did, they learned of him in their spiritual abode after they died, didn't they? Or do you believe that the just Jews have not entered heaven?
I believe the Just Jews were saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. Even though they never knew him in their earthly lives.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
NKJV
If you say that baptism is required for salvation, then you have added to the gospel and said that they is one gospel (means of salvation) for one group of people and a different means for another.
I might add that you comment about the differentiation does not make sense. Let me explain. You said:
"Even the Jews were saved by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. But you and I are speaking of the efficacy of Baptism and whether Jesus Christ requires it for Christains."
No one is a Christian until they have received Christ as Saviour. Everyone after receiving Christ as Saviour is a Christian. So how can you say that God requires something more for Christians to be saved than Jews? It makes no sense. I think that you are getting confused on terminology.
So if baptism was not required for the Jews in the OT, it is not required for anyone.Quote:
No one is saved by a different means.
That is the point. Accept that logical outcome of the reality that no one is saved by a different means and this discussion ends.
It does not sound like you are familiar at all with the mikveh. You really need to check out the link that I gave earlier in this post.Quote:
I'm quite familiar. It is the Baptism of Jesus which sanctified the waters and it is His Sacrifice which released the grace to make it an efficacious symbol. Thereafter, the symbolic ritual revealed the reality of what happened in the soul.
Not at all. You already agreed that the OT Jew did not need to be baptized to be saved, and you agreed that no one is saved by a different means, so if you have truly come to the point where you can honestly say YES to all those items above, then it was solely the sacrifice on the cross which was efficacious is making it happen, and baptism is something that we do afterward in obedience to symbolize what Christ has ALREADY done in our lives.Quote:
Did you actually die with Christ? No.
Were you actually buried with Christ? No.
But do I walk with Christ? Yes.
Am I united with Christ? Yes.
Do I walk in the newness of life? Yes.
Do I believe I died to sin? Yes.
Therefore Baptism is an efficacious sign, revealing in symbol the interior reality which we can't see with our eyes of flesh.
Now read the rest of that sentence and see what did it:Quote:
Yes, but the words "united together" express a fact. He does not say, "as though we were united together". He says "united together". In other words, by this ritual and sign of washing with water which is the likeness of his death, we are "united together" in the Body of Christ. And if we are united together in His death, CERTAINLY we are united together in the same symbol of the likeness of His Resurrection.
Rom 6:6
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV
It happened on the cross, and baptism is the symbol of what ALREADY happened on the cross.
You tried, but I saw nothing that refuted what I said. You appeared to deny what the word "anti-type" means, and appeared to read the passage as though that word was not there. That word changes everything. We cannot alter scripture without consequences!Quote:
I did. As I said, I already refuted that statement.
Perhaps you missed the part about contrasting types. You appear to be interpreting it as though the word was type, which does not mean the same thing. The flood and baptism are contrasting types. Go back and read what I said again with that in mind.Quote:
Good. Notice the definition. The antitype is foreshadowed by an earlier figure. The flood as I explained is the foreshadow of Baptism because we are saved through water. The flood destroyed the sinful as the water of Baptism washes away our sin.
Right and if it points to the reality - then baptism is not that reality.Quote:
And again, the symbolic aspect of Baptism is not in question. However, the symbol points to a reality.
Then the water baptism is not efficacious in salvation.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Please don't lengthen these messages by repeating this over and over. If we agree that it is symbolic, then you need to focus attention on your claim that it is necessary for salvation. And to be honest, you appear in many cases in our discussion to have argued against your own position.Quote:
And I also said it is God who has now tied this symbol to the reality.
Don't tell us - show us where in scripture this change took place. Rather than long messages, I would like to get focused on that singular specific point.Quote:
As you mentioned earlier, Baptism has happened long before even John baptized. Yet it was not efficacious then. It is efficacious now because Jesus said we must be born of water AND Spirit. And we must be baptized to be saved because Jesus said if we believe AND are baptized we will be saved.
As symbolic only!!Quote:
God does that. But God tied the ritual of Baptism to birth into new life.
You and I may be using th term church differently to refer to your denomination, which I think you know that I can and would refute readily. However, this post is already long enough for let's not add to the scope of the discussion. If you want to discuss that, please start a new thread.Quote:
I believe mine is also. Jesus Christ did not establish the Church so that we could thumb our nose at Her did He?
My point was that when a specific denominational doctrine disagrees with scripture, the standard must always be the word of God. Now you will likely say that you see no disagreement, but that is what we need to focus on - where does scripture say that baptism is essential for salvation?
Again, let's keep focused. Open another thread and I will gladly show you where Jesus himself said that those who believe that they need to drink His blood betrayed Him.Quote:
I believe these literally. The Cup of Communion is truly the Blood of Christ in the guise of wine.
But regardless, if you think that it is the communion cup that causes remission of sins, you have already turned away from the cross of Christ where the Bible says that the remission takes place.
These verses do not say that. They do not even touch on baptism. You are adding to scripture.Quote:
No question. It is because of Jesus sacrifice that the rite of Baptism is efficacious.
Acts 22:16Quote:
Acts Of Apostles 22 16 And now why tarriest thou? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.
Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
NKJV
There are three things mentioned in this passage:
1) We are to arise and be baptized
2) We are to call upon the name of the Lord
3) We are to have our sins washed away.
Scripture speaks strongly regarding the fact that we are saved by calling upon the name of the Lord. Here are some examples: Acts 2:21, Rom 10:13, 1 Cor 6:11
Let's also look at Hebrews 9 which speaks of the that which cleanses us from sin:
Heb 9:11-15
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more
perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood
of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of
a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 1 4 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this
reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of theof the eternal inheritance.
NKJV
We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross. Why should we assume that the sins are washed away by baptism when we see throughout the NT that we are saved by calling upon the name of the Lord and nowhere are we told that we are saved through baptism. Why ignore the second half of that verse when what it says is consistent with the rest of scripture?
Really? Then why did Jesus come to die on the cross? If obedience is essential for salvation, then the cross is a waste of time, because Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned. If, on the other hand, Christ came because we are NOT obedient, then we have the gospel that we find in scripture today.Quote:
I don't make obedience a requirement. God does.
Can you honestly say that you have obeyed all of the law perfectly and thus never sinned?Quote:
And that is correct. If we disobey we are under the law. But if we obey we are not under the law but are free of the law.
BTW, it makes no sense to say that we are under the law if we disobey, but not under it if we obey it. That makes no sense whatsoever and is completely contrary to scripture. Go back and read Gal 3 again. What scripture tells us is that if we are in Christ, we are not under the law, but if we are not, then we are under the law, and the reason is because the law is there to point us to Christ.
Yep, and that is what I said. So if you fail on any point of the law, you have failed on them all. So it is useless to be baptized if you ever lusted, stole a penny, lied, because these are all sins and if you did any of them, then you are going to hell - if what you claim is true, and that is that obedience is required.Quote:
Let us take the context of St. James teaching:
8 If then you fulfill the royal law, according to the scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; you do well.
This is reference to Christs second great commandment. If we obey this law, we won't break any of the others.
9 But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, being reproved by the law as transgressors.
By respect of persons St. James means if we discriminate between the poor and the rich. Giving the rich more respect than the poor because of their status. If we do that we sin against the second great commandment. Doing so we sin against all the Commandments.
10 And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.
[QUOTE]
As for the OT saints who died before Christ, I believe that we find that answer in scripture:Quote:
That is correct. But it begs the question, do you believe that all the Jews who died without knowing Christ were condemned to hell?
And what of those who do not accept Christ even now?
James 2:23
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
NKJV
In the OT times, those who were faithful to God looked forward to the coming Messiah and now we have the full revelation and look back to the cross. No one was ever saved except by Christ. There are many other passages, but again, I would prefer not to extend the scope of this thread - the posts are far too long now.
You brought up work by suggesting that it was not finished by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, but we have to do something in order to be saved.Quote:
Have we drifted into a discussion of faith and works? I don't mind, but perhaps we should start another thread.
If you make a law requiring baptism in order to be saved, then you have placed yourself back under a law of works.Quote:
That is all true, but have we nullified or destroyed the law?
I do not follow the dictates of any specific denomination - I follow what scripture says which is to believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.Quote:
That is a false assumption. The Church teaches we are saved by the grace of God alone.
Here is where we Catholics differ with the various nonCatholics with whom I've discussed the subject.
They claim that faith alone, that is, a simple declarative statement of faith, is all that is required to save them. I'm assuming this is what you believe.
Whereas, the Catholic Church teaches that it is a complete conversion of life and persevernce in this conversion until the end.
Let's stick to the Bible, okay, rather than pushing doctrinal stances of a specific denominations.Quote:
And by His Grace He has established Sacraments of reconciliation.
Correct. We believe confession is a Sacrament, a fountain of grace which Jesus established for our reconciliation with His Body.
Holy Spirit.Quote:
Then who guides us to faith?
Good - it was not clear to me why you were disagreeing with me when I said that previously.Quote:
Sin has everything to do with failing to be obedient. It all began with the first act of disobedience by Adam and Eve.
I answered that a couple of times. They received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which scripture says only comes to those who are saved.Quote:
I'm still waiting for you to show that they were saved before Baptism.
Now, please answer my question (which I think I have asked 4 or 5 times now)
I never said anything against being baptized. It is an act of obedience following salvation. This discussion is not about whether we should be baptized, it is trying to find any scripture which would validate or claim that it is required to be saved.Quote:
If they were washed of sin, why does St. Peter recommend Baptism? Are St. Peter's words not inspired by the Holy Spirit?
"moving amongst" is not the same thing as receiving the Holy Spirit as the Apostles did.Quote:
In addition, this verse does show that the Holy Spirit moves amongst those who are seeking God and have not accepted Jesus Christ in their lives.
De Maria,
For future messages, I see that for so much of this discussion, we are going around and around and getting nowhere and now you are trying to broaden the scope yet further. This does not do anything but distract away from the key point which is - where is your scripture that says that if we are not saved, we go to hell?
Either you can shorten it in your response by focusing on what you believe to be your one or two strongest points, or if you do not, then I will review your response, and I will decide what are your strongest points and will ignore the rest of the post.
Ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Ok. However, I wanted to clarify that the water does nothing unless God willed it so. Baptism existed before Christ. But since Christ God has tied Baptism to salvation.Quote:
Yes, but your central point of disagreement with Tj3 is that you think baptism is required, while he thinks it it's optional, isn't that right? To argue that it's required, means that the result can't happen unless the requirement is met. Saying that God is the cause of the requirement doesn't change the basic argument.
I believe I posted this before:Quote:
So can the Spirit wash the soul even if the water doesn't wash the body?
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
In other words, the Sacraments are the ordinary means of salvation which God has revealed to us. But God is not bound by these Sacraments.
Sincerely,
Only in a symbolic sense!Quote:
Ok. However, I wanted to clarify that the water does nothing unless God willed it so. Baptism existed before Christ. But since Christ God has tied Baptism to salvation.
Actually, I thought it was you who was broadening the scope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I agree. Let us start over.Quote:
This does not do anything but distract away from the key point which is - where is your scripture that says that if we are not saved, we go to hell?
What I see as the main difference in our arguments is that you don't see Baptism as required by Jesus Christ.Quote:
Either you can shorten it in your response by focusing on what you believe to be your one or two strongest points, or if you do not, then I will review your response, and I will decide what are your strongest points and will ignore the rest of the post.
So, it seems to me, that if Jesus says,
If they believe AND are baptized, they will be saved. If they believe not, they will be condemned. Note the AND. Jesus did not say, believe OR are baptized. He tied the two together and required them.
Without faith you can't please God. Without faith and baptism you won't be saved. Simple as that.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I cannot comprehend how you came to that conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Okay, so why not answer my question about Acts 10:47. How did those people get saved before they were water baptized?Quote:
I agree. Let us start over.
Then you have not been listening to me. I see baptism as an important matter of obedience. The difference is that you believe that a person cannot be saved unless they are baptized.Quote:
What I see as the main difference in our arguments is that you don't see Baptism as required by Jesus Christ.
So, it seems to me, that if Jesus says,
He tied the know insofar as pointing out that it is important (though I think that there are probably stronger argumenst for that also), but this actually demonstrates that bapgtism is not necessary for salvation, as has been pointed out many times.Quote:
If they believe AND are baptized, they will be saved. If they believe not, they will be condemned. Note the AND. Jesus did not say, believe OR are baptized. He tied the two together and required them.
This is scripturalQuote:
Without faith you can't please God.
This is notQuote:
Without faith and baptism you won't be saved.
Can I suggest that to avoid getting off track once again that if you make a claim such as that last one, that the scripture to validate you claim be provided.
I would not want to rule out baptism of desire. If a person has the desire to be baptized, but is unable, I believe this person could still be saved. Perhaps the phrase "may not be saved" is something I could agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
No He doesn't. He contrasts the flesh and the Spirit. Do we really need to go over this again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I don't need to show anything beyond what I've already shown. It is all there.Quote:
You have shown nothing else in that passage nor can you because it isn't there.
Yes. It follows perfectly. He instructs Nicodemus on the efficacy of Baptism in Water and Spirit and then proceeds to baptize.Quote:
What he does afterward it not in the same context.
Very good doctrines actually. Jesus said He would die for our sins and then what happened. He died for our sins. Wow! He said it then He did it afterward.Quote:
I would hate to think of what strange doctrines one could come up with if they interpreted what Jesus or an Apostle did throughout the NT on the basis of the context of what they did afterward.
The word AND makes it very clear. You can't change the English grammar simply because you disagree with the Scripture: There are two conditions for salvation expressed by Jesus in this sentence, belief AND Baptism.Quote:
There may be an inference in the first half of the verse, but when taken in context, we can see clearly what is meant. Doctrine cannot be properly based on inference of partial verses.
And it does in this context. They are speaking of water.Quote:
Actually, baptism does not just mean wash in water. It CAN mean that,
Provide the Scripture.Quote:
but it also means much more. When it means to wash, it refers more specifically to a ceremonial or ritual washing which, we are told in Hebrews is purely symbolic.
Therefore the context is very important.Quote:
Other things that the word used in Greek can mean include:
- Identification with someone or something else (i.e. pure symbolism)
- To become the property of
- dye articles
- to be overwhelmed
No. You are mixing apples and oranges. I was not distinguishing between races but between covenants. The Judaic covenant does not require baptism. The Christian covenant does.Quote:
The offence would be the same if you differentiated between Indians and Christians, and told how Christians differ from Indians. The implication is that you cannot be both.
As I said, I am quite familiar. No need to broaden the scope to the Old Testament practice. We are discussing whether Jesus requires Baptism for Chrisitans and whether it is an efficacious symbol which effects what it symbolizes or whether it is an empty symbol which does nothing for the soul.Quote:
What is baptism in Judaism? Check out this article which addresses that specific point, from scripture:
http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo...OT-baptism.pdf
But we are not speaking of the race. We are speaking of their faith. Did they acquire faith in Jesus Christ and become Christian? Or did they remain faithful to Moses and eschew Jesus Christ?Quote:
They did indeed remain Jewish. I am shocked that anyone would say such a thing. They no more changed their racial extract than a Chinese person or a Caucasian person would upon being saved.
What about Paul?Quote:
What about Paul?
Paul is a Christian of Semitic descent. He is a Jew by race but a Christian by faith.Quote:
Acts 22:1-4
22:1 "Brethren and fathers, hear my defense before you now." 2 And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent. Then he said: 3 "I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.
NKJV
What are we discussing, race or faith? Have I been asking or detailing physical features, language or culture? No, I have been discussing Baptism. So why have you suddenly changed to a discussion of race?
No one can change their origins. Certainly, I would not dispute that he is a Jew born of Jews. He says so himself. But does he believe in Jesus or does he continue to believe in Mosaic covenant and ignore Jesus?: If so, why don't we refer to him any longer as Saul?Quote:
He remained a Jew.
He remained a Jew by race but not by faith. By faith he became a Christian.Quote:
He learned who the Jewish Messiah was an received Him as His Saviour, but He remained a Jew
What about Peter?Quote:
. What about Peter:
Did I ever say that Peter changed racially? No? Then why bring it up?Quote:
Gal 2:14-15
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
NKJV
Note that Peter did not change racially. He remained a Jew.
Correct.Quote:
Gal 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
NKJV
No. Jesus said it was required as I have shown. And Baptism is required of any Jew or Gentile who become Christian. But Moses did not require Baptism of any Jew. Nor did the Gentile gods require Baptism of any Gentile.Quote:
If you say that baptism is required for salvation, then you have added to the gospel and said that they is one gospel (means of salvation) for one group of people and a different means for another.
But have you answered the question? Since Moses did not require Baptism in the Old Covenant, how did the Jews who died before Christ come to salvation?
And what about those who did not accept Christ in His earthly life?
I believe you have misunderstood the question. How were Jews of the Old Covenant saved? Did they all go to hell? Obviously not, since Abraham is depicted in heaven and God says He is the God of the Living. So, how were they saved without knowing Christ?Quote:
I might add that you comment about the differentiation does not make sense. Let me explain. You said:
"Even the Jews were saved by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. But you and I are speaking of the efficacy of Baptism and whether Jesus Christ requires it for Christains."
No one is a Christian until they have received Christ as Saviour. Everyone after receiving Christ as Saviour is a Christian. So how can you say that God requires something more for Christians to be saved than Jews? It makes no sense. I think that you are getting confused on terminology.
Jesus says without belief AND Baptism you will not be saved. There is no getting around the conjunction.Quote:
So if baptism was not required for the Jews in the OT, it is not required for anyone.
There is only one means and that is God's grace. But God has established His Sacraments in the New Covenant that we may avail ourselves of His grace. The Old Covenant did not afford these vehicles of Grace. But in the New Covenant Jesus provided these fountains of Grace because we are under the New Law of Grace. It is by Grace we are saved.Quote:
That is the point. Accept that logical outcome of the reality that no one is saved by a different means and this discussion ends.
I am quite. But again, why do you want to broaden the scope of this discussion? Let us continue reviewing the Scriptures about Baptism in the New Covenant. We can begin another thread on whatever you want in the future. Agreed?Quote:
It does not sound like you are familiar at all with the mikveh. You really need to check out the link that I gave earlier in this post.
Correct.Quote:
Not at all. You already agreed that the OT Jew did not need to be baptized to be saved,
Correct. The only means is God's grace.Quote:
and you agreed that no one is saved by a different means
No. Here is where you are gone wrong. If that were true, then even nonbelievers would be saved. But they are not. Or are you saying that even belief is optional?Quote:
, so if you have truly come to the point where you can honestly say YES to all those items above, then it was solely the sacrifice on the cross which was efficacious is making it happen, and baptism is something that we do afterward in obedience to symbolize what Christ has ALREADY done in our lives.
Jesus tied belief AND baptism to salvation. Neither is optional.
The grace was released on the Cross. But we need to apply that grace to our lives. Otherwise all would be cleansed including nonbelievers. There would be no necessity of faith, no necessity of morals, nor of Bible Teaching.Quote:
Now read the rest of that sentence and see what did it:
Rom 6:6
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV
It happened on the cross, and baptism is the symbol of what ALREADY happened on the cross.
Yes, Jesus Christ died that the body of sin might be done away with, but we must cooperate with His death in order to apply those graces. We do so by dying with Him in Baptism and raising with Him in newness of Life.
Acts Of Apostles 2
38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
No. I used the definition you provided and substituted it for the word. The anti-type as you showed is foreshadowed by the type. The type being the flood and the anti-type being Baptism. Just as the flood cleansed the world of sin, Baptism now saves us by cleansing us of sin.Quote:
You tried, but I saw nothing that refuted what I said. You appeared to deny what the word "anti-type" means, and appeared to read the passage as though that word was not there. That word changes everything. We cannot alter scripture without consequences!
I understand typology. It is a very important part of Catholicism. Adam foreshadows Christ. Therefore Adam is a type of Christ. Christ is the antitype of Adam. Eve foreshadows Mary. Joseph of many colors foreshadows Joseph the spouse of Mary. The Manna of heaven foreshadows the Holy Eucharist. And there are many other types and anti-types.Quote:
Perhaps you missed the part about contrasting types. You appear to be interpreting it as though the word was type, which does not mean the same thing. The flood and baptism are contrasting types. Go back and read what I said again with that in mind.
Correct. It is the efficacious sign of the reality within. Now if you agree that Baptism is the efficacious sign which points to the reality within, we can focus on the necessity of Baptism. Can we not?Quote:
Right and if it points to the reality - then baptism is not that reality.
Sincerely,
De Maria
All right well... something a lot of people don't understand is that babies don't go to Hell... The wages of sin is death, not the sin nature.
Catholics do a lot of things that have more to do with the condemnation factor than the conviction, God never leaves you with no way out.
Anyway, as far as the fact that we aren't perfect in nature, even if we were, I mean think about it Adam and Eve had daily communion with God one on one, and all they had was a tree to mess up on, and did so.
We also have years and years of generational curses, which is biblical, the sins of our forefathers will be passed through the generations.
~Ash
If we are not baptized by water washing our skin, then the Holy Spirit has not washed our soul. If the sign is not present, neither is the reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Agreed. So, if you have now accepted that I am not disputing the symbolic aspect of Baptism, we can proceed to focus on its necessity.Quote:
Please don't lengthen these messages by repeating this over and over.. .
This took place when Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit sanctified the waters:Quote:
Don't tell us - show us where in scripture this change took place. Rather than long messages, I would like to get focused on that singular specific point.
536 The baptism of Jesus is on his part the acceptance and inauguration of his mission as God's suffering Servant... At his baptism "the heavens were opened" - the heavens that Adam's sin had closed - and the waters were sanctified by the descent of Jesus and the Spirit, a prelude to the new creation.
Matthew 3
16 And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17 And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Lol!! No need to scream.:)Quote:
As symbolic only!!
God tied Baptism to New Life as an efficacious sign which points to the reality. Without the sign of new life, there is no new life.
If you would like to discuss the meaning of Church please begin another thread.Quote:
You and I may be using th term church differently to refer to your denomination, which i think you know that I can and would refute readily
My thoughts exactly.Quote:
. However, this post is already long enough for let's not add to the scope of the discussion. If you want to discuss that, please start a new thread.
I believe you and I are using the term "word of God" differently also. No need to start another thread. We've already threatened to start a whole slew and I doubt I would have the time to participate in all of them if we were to actually do so.Quote:
My point was that when a specific denominational doctrine disagrees with scripture, the standard must always be the word of God.
Let me just explain that to Catholics the Word of God is passed on in Tradition as well as in Scripture. This is confirmed in Scripture which says,
1 Thessalonians 2 13 Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.
Jesus said, "if they believe and are baptized they shall be saved."Quote:
Now you will likely say that you see no disagreement, but that is what we need to focus on - where does scripture say that baptism is essential for salvation?
Correct. Those who understood that He spoke literally left Him. And He didn't call them back and say, "Hey come back, I was just speaking metaphorically." No, in fact, He even challenged the Apostles, "Are you also leaving?" To which St. Paul answered, "To whom would we run?"Quote:
Again, let's keep focused. Open another thread and I will gladly show you where Jesus himself said that those who believe that they need to drink His blood betrayed Him.
Nope. I have accepted the Cross where the Church says that remission begins. The Church wrote the New Testament by the way.Quote:
But regardless, if you think that it is the communion cup that causes remission of sins, you have already turned away from the cross of Christ where the Bible says that the remission takes place.
We, Catholics, are not people of the Book. We are people of the Word of God. And Tradition of the Church teaches us that it is the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross that God availed us of grace for all the Sacraments. Not just Baptism.Quote:
These verses do not say that. They do not even touch on baptism. You are adding to scripture.
1182 The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross, from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited. In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen).
1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized. The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life. From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit" in order to enter the Kingdom of God.
See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from, if not from the cross of Christ, from his death. There is the whole mystery: he died for you. In him you are redeemed, in him you are saved.
AOk.Quote:
cts 22:16
Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
NKJV
There are three things mentioned in this passage:
1) We are to arise and be baptized
2) We are to call upon the name of the Lord
3) We are to have our sins washed away.
True. Neither of which deny the necessity of Baptism. Or does Scripture contradict Itself?Quote:
Scripture speaks strongly regarding the fact that we are saved by calling upon the name of the Lord. Here are some examples: Acts 2:21, Rom 10:13, 1 Cor 6:11
All you are doing is pitting one Scripture against another. None of this contradicts the previous Scriptures which declare the necessity and efficacy of Baptism.Quote:
Let's also look at Hebrews 9 which speaks of the that which cleanses us from sin:
Heb 9:11-15
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 1 4 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this
reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of theof the eternal inheritance.
NKJV
But Jesus has tied the water to the cleansing of sin as an efficacious sign without which we are not saved. Scripture does not contradict.Quote:
We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross.
1. If they believe and are baptized they shall be saved...
2. Arise and be baptized for the remission of sin...
Does the second half of the verse say that baptism is not necessary? The first half says that belief and baptism are necessary. The second half simply says, if one does not believe he is condemned. It follows logically that if one does not believe one will refuse to be baptized.Quote:
Why should we assume that the sins are washed away by baptism when we see throughout the NT that we are saved by calling upon the name of the Lord and nowhere are we told that we are saved through baptism. Why ignore the second half of that verse when what it says is consistent with the rest of scripture?
Have you not read in Scripture that Jesus is our model and our example. We must be obedient as He is obedient:Quote:
Really? Then why did Jesus come to die on the cross? If obedience is essential for salvation, then the cross is a waste of time, because Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned. If, on the other hand, Christ came because we are NOT obedient, then we have the gospel that we find in scripture today.
1 Peter 2 21 For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps.
Jesus didn't suffer so that we wouldn't suffer. He suffered so we would learn the efficacy of suffering in union with Him:
Romans 8 17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.
Have you forgotten that we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation? Jesus has provided a fountain of grace for me to avail when I commit sin.Quote:
Can you honestly say that you have obeyed all of the law perfectly and thus never sinned?
It is precisely according to Scripture:Quote:
BTW, it makes no sense to say that we are under the law if we disobey, but not under it if we obey it. That makes no sense whatsoever and is completely contrary to scripture.
Galatians 5 18 But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, 20 Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, 21 Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, 23 Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Same thing. If we live according to the Spirit we will not break any law. And if we do not break any law, we are not under the law.Quote:
Go back and read Gal 3 again. What scripture tells us is that if we are in Christ, we are not under the law, but if we are not, then we are under the law, and the reason is because the law is there to point us to Christ.
But if we sin, we break the law and are therefore under the law. For if we break one commandment, we break them all.
[quote]Yep, and that is what I said. So if you fail on any point of the law, you have failed on them all. So it is useless to be baptized if you ever lusted, stole a penny, lied, because these are all sins and if you did any of them, then you are going to hell - if what you claim is true, and that is that obedience is required.
[QUOTE]
That is not the Catholic Teaching. To us, salvation is a process. It is not a one time, once saved always saved deal. We must persevere in faith until the end:
Matthew 24 13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.
Agreed.Quote:
As for the OT saints who died before Christ, I believe that we find that answer in scripture:
James 2:23
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
NKJV
In the OT times, those who were faithful to God looked forward to the coming Messiah and now we have the full revelation and look back to the cross. No one was ever saved except by Christ. There are many other passages, but again, I would prefer not to extend the scope of this thread - the posts are far too long now.
Are you agreeing we have to do something in order to be saved? Or are you saying that is what I said?Quote:
You brought up work by suggesting that it was not finished by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, but we have to do something in order to be saved.
I didn't make that requirement. Jesus did.Quote:
If you make a law requiring baptism in order to be saved, then you have placed yourself back under a law of works.
In other words, you follow your own interpretation of Scripture.Quote:
I do not follow the dictates of any specific denomination - I follow what scripture says which is to believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
Your presuppositions are your doctrinal stances. My presuppositions are the Church doctrines which I believe are true. Just because you have eschewed the Church, why should I? I believe Jesus built the Church that we might avail ourselves of Her wisdom.Quote:
Let's stick to the Bible, okay, rather than pushing doctrinal stances of a specific denominations.
I claim the Holy Spirit also. Now are we pitting the Holy Spirit against Himself? Or are you holier than I and claim the Holy Spirit all to yourself.Quote:
Holy Spirit.
This is why the Scriptures say, "if you dispute with your brother take him to the Church." There has to be an arbiter to say who is really guided by the Holy Spirit. Who better than the entity which Scripture calls the Pillar of Truth.
I must have misunderstood.Quote:
Good - it was not clear to me why you were disagreeing with me when I said that previously.
Where?Quote:
I answered that a couple of times. They received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which scripture says only comes to those who are saved.
Which is?Quote:
Now, please answer my question (which I think I have asked 4 or 5 times now)
Ok, let me understand.Quote:
I never said anything against being baptized. It is an act of obedience following salvation. This discussion is not about whether we should be baptized, it is trying to find any scripture which would validate or claim that it is required to be saved.
1. You do believe in being baptized.
2. As an act of obedience.
3. And it is not required.
If I have divided your words correctly, don't #2 and #3 contradict? Otherwise why are you performing an empty ritual which is not required? And if it is not required, why do you consider it obedience? Obedience means you are acquiesing to a command.
Yet St. Peter seems to say it is:Quote:
"moving amongst" is not the same thing as receiving the Holy Spirit as the Apostles did.
Acts 10:47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?
Thanks for the courteous discussion. Tomorrow is a busy day in our household and I may not be able to respond until late or the next day.
May God bless you and your family,
Sincerely,
De Maria,
I said that if you did not chose to focus on your keys points and shorten this, I would choose them for you, so here si what I see as the key points:
1) You are not taking your doctrine from the Bible (God's word), but rather from your denominational dictates.
That is our first point of contention because unless we have agreement on the standard that we use, we have no hope of ever bringing this to a conclusion, and I do not intend to deviate from using God's word as my standard.
You also use a un-scriptural oxymoron of the "efficacious symbol", which again is not found in scripture but appears to come from your denominational teachings.
2) You claim that baptism is efficacious, but to date have failed to demonstrate that to be the case from scripture. Indeed, you have failed to show how the people in Acts 10:47 were saved before water baptism. This point alone is fatal to your argument.
In addition, though you claim you have not, you have in fact come forward with two ways to be saved. One for Jews (not requiring baptism), and one for Gentiles (requiring baptism).
Scripture says that there is one way to be saved.
Now, unless you can come up with something better than the same old arguments which have been addressed over and over again, I suggest that we are pretty much at the end of the trail on this one.
Great!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I think I mentioned before, that you and I interpret the term "God's word" differently.Quote:
1) You are not taking your doctrine from the Bible (God's word), but rather from your denominational dictates.
For you, God's word is entirely contained in the Bible. Am I right?
But for Catholics, God's word is contained in the traditions by Word and Scripture.
So I agree this would be a wonderful place to start.
You are correct. So if you don't mind, lets postpone this discussion and focus on this.Quote:
That is our first point of contention because unless we have agreement on the standard that we use, we have no hope of ever bringing this to a conclusion, and I do not intend to deviate from using God's word as my standard.
As I understand, you believe in a doctrine called Sola Scriptura? Would you define the doctrine and show me where it is in Scripture?
In the meantime, the three prong Catholic Tradition is confirmed in Scripture:
First we are instructed to listen to the Church:
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Two, we are instructed that the Word of God is passed on orally:
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
As well as by Scripture, and therefore it follows; three, that we keep traditions by word and scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Again, if you don't mind, in order not to derail this thread any further, I'll post this separately and we can continue there.
Sincerely,
De Maria
That is the first issue. We are to allow God's word to interpret itself - we are not to interpret it.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV
God is not contained within His word, but God has chosen to reveal Himself in the Bible and anything else which claims to be from God must be tested by using God's word, because God will never contradict Himself.Quote:
For you, God's word is entirely contained in the Bible. Am I right?
Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV
Matt 15:2-4Quote:
But for Catholics, God's word is contained in the traditions by Word and Scripture.
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV
I just did.Quote:
As I understand, you believe in a doctrine called Sola Scriptura? Would you define the doctrine and show me where it is in Scripture?
First, define what you mean by the word "Church". I think that is something else where we may be at odds.Quote:
In the meantime, the three prong Catholic Tradition is confirmed in Scripture:
First we are instructed to listen to the Church:
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Where does it say to pass it on "orally"?Quote:
Two, we are instructed that the Word of God is passed on orally:
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Yep.Quote:
As well as by Scripture, and therefore it follows; three, that we keep traditions by word and scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Okay.Quote:
Again, if you don't mind, in order not to derail this thread any further, I'll post this separately and we can continue there.
The Bible says that we are saved by the Gospel of Christ, which is the death burial and resurrection or Him, and in Romans 6:1 is the following through of that gospel, that we have died to our old selves, and a buried with Christ, as such we should walk in newness of life.
In acts 2:38, I looked up in the greek, someone had told me that "for" and the "for the remission of sins" meant "because of". Bogus. For is from the word eis, which is a preposition, and the translation for "for" is, -In direct or immediate necessity of-
I also looked at the word "name" in Matthew 28:19... its proper name.
Acts 2:38
And Peter said unto them, Repent (romans 6:1-6, death to the old and new birth to the new), and be baptised (baptiso, full submersion in water) in the name of Jesus Christ ( Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.") For (in direct necessity of) the remission of sins.
And you WILL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
If that's not spelled out well enough for you... I don't know what else can be done.
~Ash
You did not say what source you used, but if I were you, I would get rid of it. Let's see what scripture itself has to say about the meaning of "eis". We have many passages in scripture where “eis” carries the intent or concept of “because of”, for example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Leidenschaftlich für Wahr
Matt 12:41
41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it,
Because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is
Here.
NKJV
The word "at" is eis. Now did they repent so that they would have the preaching of Jonah? Or is it the other way around?
Rom 6:3-4
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptizedinto (eis) His death? NKJV
Were we baptized to cause His death?
Matt 3:11
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance, but He who is coming after me is
Mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy
Spirit and fire. NKJV
Were they baptized with water to get repentance or because they repented?
The point is that the intent of “because of” is commonly used both in English and in Koine Greek, and that is the only sense in which the word “eis” can be understood in the context of scripture for it to be consistent with the rest of scripture. With that in mind, let's have another look at Acts 2:38:
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NKJV
So now understanding that the intent of “eis” in context is “because of”, we could read this to say:
“Repent, and then be baptized because you have received remission of sins and the Holy Spirit.”
I don't see your response on that thread so I guess you want to continue here?
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The Bible seems to say that the Church is the ultimate test:Quote:
God is not contained within His word, but God has chosen to reveal Himself in the Bible and anything else which claims to be from God must be tested by using God's word, because God will never contradict Himself.
Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Note how Jesus, the Head of the Church is judging between a certain tradition and the Word of God.Quote:
Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV
This is precisely the authority which the Church now accepts. If we look at Church history, we see and individual named Arius who claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and who interpreted Scripture to mean that Jesus is not God.
The Church compared his teachings to Tradition and Scripture. The Church declared Arius a heretic.
Do you mean that there is no explicit statement which says that Scripture is the only standard of faith?Quote:
I just did.
The universal Church which Jesus established and whose head He is.Quote:
First, define what you mean by the word "Church". I think that is something else where we may be at odds.
1 Thessalonians 2:13Quote:
Where does it say to pass it on "orally"?
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
The word of God ye HEARD of us means that they spoke these words.
Glad you agree.Quote:
Yep.
Ok, good talking to you.Quote:
Okay.
I'll be gone for the next 8 days. God willing we'll take up where we left off when I return.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Some of us have lives off internet also, and work during the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Good, so if you know this how could you say this...Quote:
Correct.
The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination, and an interpretation of their denomination is made by men is in violation of 2 Peter 1:20. As for the verse that you quoted, no doubt you know that this has to with dispute resolution and has nothing to do with doctrinal interpretation.Quote:
The Bible seems to say that the Church is the ultimate test:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Note how Jesus, the Head of the Church is judging between a certain tradition and the Word of God.
This is precisely the authority which the Church now accepts. If we look at Church history, we see and individual named Arius who claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and who interpreted Scripture to mean that Jesus is not God.
The Roman Catholic Church also declared one of the "infallible popes" a heretic.Quote:
The Church compared his teachings to Tradition and Scripture. The Church declared Arius a heretic.
Why do you keep asking after being answered?Quote:
Do you mean that there is no explicit statement which says that Scripture is the only standard of faith?
So you do not mean the Roman Catholic Church which was founded but Constantine in 325AD but are referring to the body of all believers. Good, we agree.Quote:
The universal Church which Jesus established and whose head He is.
They heard them speak it, but you claimed that it told you to pass it along orally - still waiting for where it says that.Quote:
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
εἰς (eis 1519)
1. into
into (to the interior), to, unto.
2. to
unto (implying motion to the interior); into, towards, with a view to; implying immediate purpose.
2. εἰς τὸ (eis 1519 to) with the infinitive, to the end that, with a view to doing, being, or steering whatever the verb may mean.
3. unto
unto; implying purpose, to the end that; when referring to time it marks either the interval during; or the point itself as an object of the aim or purpose, up to, for (marking the immediate purpose?).
4. in
into, unto, to, implying motion to the interior, governing the Accusative. *Act 2:27,31 (with Genitive) εἰς ᾅδου (eis 1519 haidou) = unto (the habitation or power of) Hades.
5. for
into, to, unto, with a view to; hence, with respect to a certain event, in order to, for.
6. on
into (motion to the interior) to, unto.
7. toward -s
unto, to, towards.
8. against
(motion to the interior) into, to; unto; towards, sometimes implying mere reference in regard to, sometimes hostility, against.
9. upon
unto, into, implying motion to an object; unto, implying object, and purpose; into, union and communion with.
10. At
(motion to the interior) into, to, unto, with a view to (opposite of ἔμπροσθεν (emprosthen 1715)).
11. Among, amongst
(motion to the interior), into, to, unto, with a view to.
12. Of
into, to, unto, with a view to; with respect to a certain result, in order to for, towards.
13. Concerning
into, to, unto, with a view to, marking the direction of thought or speech.
14. Throughout
unto, into.
15. A or an
preposition, into, with a view to; also, denoting equivalence, as.
16. Before
(motion to the interior) into, to, unto.
17. By
into, implying motion to the interior; to, unto, with a view to; (opposite of ἐκ (ek 1537)).
18. As
(motion to the interior) into, to, with a view to.
19. One
(feminine μία (mia), neuter ἕν (hen)) one, the first cardinal numeral; emphatic, one, even one, one single.
20. That... might be
unto, for. (Here, εἰς σωτηρίαν (eis 1519 sōtērian) for salvation).
21. Till
unto, when referring to time, denoting either the interval up to a certain point, during; or the point itself as the object or aim of some purpose, up to, for.
22. Until
unto; implying purpose, to the end that; when referring to time, marking either the interval, during; or the point itself as the object of the aim or purpose, up to, for.
23. With
into, implying either motion to a place, or arrival at a place by motion; up to, as the object of some aim or purpose.
24. Condemned (to be)
into, to, unto, with a view to (denoting object); in order to (denoting purpose).
Sorry I must have read the wrong line, however this is better. Greekbiblestudy.org
Not only have I shown you how the word has been used in scripture, but the word "for" is used the same way in English. For example:
"I took medicine for a cold".
Does a person take it to get a cold, or because they have a cold?
Simple grammar.
Understandable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
It is a Catholic doctrine that the Word of God is not interpreted individually. Whereas, nonCatholics have reserved the right to interpret the Word of God in the Bible apart from Church Tradition from the inception of the Protestant movement.Quote:
Good, so if you know this how could you say this...
What I meant when I said that you and I interpret the term "Word of God" differently is that you consider the Word of God to be exclusively in the Bible.
Whereas we consider it is also in the Traditions of God passed on by the Church.
First, provide the proof that "The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination...". After which you can try to prove how the Churches interpretation of "the Church" is in violation with any Scripture. Also, please provide your interpretation of "the Church". I guarantee, the interpretation in violation of Scripture is yours.Quote:
The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination, and an interpretation of their denomination is made by men is in violation of 2 Peter 1:20.
Do you mean that there exist no disputes over doctrinal interpretation?Quote:
As for the verse that you quoted, no doubt you know that this has to with dispute resolution and has nothing to do with doctrinal interpretation.
Exactly. And Jesus the Head of the Church passed on His authority to the Church:Quote:
Note how Jesus, the Head of the Church is judging between a certain tradition and the Word of God.
Matt 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
And as Matt 18:17 has shown before, the Church has the authority to settle disputes in any matter and to excommunicate those who do not "hear the Church". Therefore the Church now has the authority given Her by Jesus Christ to judge between man made traditions and the Word of God.
You love to jump around don't you? Are you trying for the scatter gun effect? But hey, I have time. Provide the data and lets examine it in detail. Lets see exactly who declared whom a heretic and find out if it were a valid declaration. And lets see if you even know what the term "infallible" means to a Catholic.Quote:
The Roman Catholic Church also declared one of the "infallible popes" a heretic.
Because you haven't answered. Or if you have, point to it. I don't see a statement from you saying, Sola Scriptura means this or that and you can find it in this verse in the Bible.Quote:
Why do you keep asking after being answered?
St. Constantine did not found a Church. He protected the Church from Roman persecution when he came into power as the Roman Caesar because his own mother, St. Helena, whom he loved was a faithful Christian.Quote:
So you do not mean the Roman Catholic Church which was founded but Constantine in 325AD
I am referring to the Church founded by Jesus Christ.Quote:
but are referring to the body of all believers. Good, we agree.
The Word of God is passed on by hearing. It is strongly implied in this verse.Quote:
They heard them speak it, but you claimed that it told you to pass it along orally - still waiting for where it says that.
Are you implying that your doctrines may be implied in Scrpture but Catholic doctrines must be explicit? I don't think so. As they say, what is good for the gander is good for the goose. So, if that is the case, please provide the explicit statement of Sola Scriptura in Scripture?
Sincerely,
Again, please deal with what I do say, and do not use strawman arguments. As I pointed out, scripture is of no private interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV
That means no one, not you, not me, not the pope, not Martin Luther, not your priest. No one.
And Yes, non-Catholics are not subject to your church doctrines and private interpretations, but rather my position is that we should submit ourselves to God's teachings given in the Bible.
Again, please allow me to speak for myself, and you speak for yourself. That will work much better. I stated my position about this before, and no you did not properly represent my position. Please deal with what I did say, not what you want me to say.Quote:
What I meant when I said that you and I interpret the term "Word of God" differently is that you consider the Word of God to be exclusively in the Bible.
Now the question is - what is the "church". Is it your denomination or is it what the Bible says that it is, the body of all believers? I chose the latter. This is the key point of our disagreement - you choose to submit yourself to your denomination. I do not submit myself to any denomination.Quote:
Whereas we consider it is also in the Traditions of God passed on by the Church.
See above.Quote:
First, provide the proof that "The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination...". After which you can try to prove how the Churches interpretation of "the Church" is in violation with any Scripture.
See above.Quote:
Also, please provide your interpretation of "the Church". I guarantee, the interpretation in violation of Scripture is yours.
That once again is the doctruine of your denomination, not given in scripture. Indeed your denomination did not exist at the time that Jesus walked the earth in the flesh, nor did any denomination. Matthew 28 And 18 therefore have absolutrely nothing to do with your denomination or any denomination. If you claim otherwise, show me where we find any denomination in the Bible.Quote:
Exactly. And Jesus the Head of the Church passed on His authority to the Church:
Heh heh - it is you using the scattergun effect. The facts are acknowledged by even Catholic sources - are you denying this to be true?Quote:
You love to jump around don't you? Are you trying for the scatter gun effect? But hey, I have time. Provide the data and lets examine it in detail. Lets see exactly who declared whom a heretic and find out if it were a valid declaration. And lets see if you even know what the term "infallible" means to a Catholic.
It is useless to discuss anything with you if your approach is going to be to deny if you don't like the answer.Quote:
Because you haven't answered. Or if you have, point to it. I don't see a statement from you saying, Sola Scriptura means this or that and you can find it in this verse in the Bible.
Even your Cardinal John Henry Newman disagreed with you on that point.Quote:
St. Constantine did not found a Church. He protected the Church from Roman persecution when he came into power as the Roman Caesar because his own mother, St. Helena, whom he loved was a faithful Christian.
Are you denying that this is the body of all believers?Quote:
I am referring to the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
Implied in your opinion. Again, they heard them speak it, but you claimed that it told you to pass it along orally - still waiting for where it says that.Quote:
The Word of God is passed on by hearing. It is strongly implied in this verse.
A strawman argument is another argument which is substituted for the actual argument in order to pretend to win the debate.. Where have I substituted another argument for your actual argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
As I said, that is Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church does not permit private interpretation.Quote:
As I pointed out, scripture is of no private interpretation.
Correct.Quote:
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV
That means no one, not you, not me, not the pope, not Martin Luther, not your priest. No one.
How do you define "private interpretation"?Quote:
And Yes, non-Catholics are not subject to your church doctrines and private interpretations,
How do you do that without interpreting the Bible?Quote:
but rather my position is that we should submit ourselves to God's teachings given in the Bible.
Then you don't believe in Sola Scriptura? Please clarify your position.Quote:
Again, please allow me to speak for myself, and you speak for yourself. That will work much better. I stated my position about this before, and no you did not properly represent my position. Please deal with what I did say, not what you want me to say.
Oh, I see. OK.Quote:
Now the question is - what is the "church". Is it your denomination or is it what the Bible says that it is, the body of all believers? I chose the latter.
Let me correct a misconception. The Magisterium defines Church as any institution whose Bishops were anointed by Bishops which can be traced to the Apostles. Examples would be, the Orthodox and the Coptic. Non-Catholic confessions, such as the Lutherans and Baptists can only trace their beliefs as far back as Luther. But they are still considered members of the Body of Christ due to their Baptism.
So, although those institutions which stem from the Protestant revolution are not considered Churches. Ttheir members, if Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are considered members of the Catholic Church. Even if they themselves don't acknowledge the Catholic Church.
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
I agree.Quote:
This is the key point of our disagreement -
I understand. Please consider the ramifications of what you just said. In order to understand what I believe, you can study what the Catholic Church teaches.Quote:
you choose to submit yourself to your denomination. I do not submit myself to any denomination.
However, in order to understand what you believe, YOU must divulge it. I can't read your mind.
The challenge stands.Quote:
See above.
First, provide the proof that "The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination...". After which you can try to prove how the Churches interpretation of "the Church" is in violation with any Scripture.
I have proven that the Catholic Church recognizes that the term Church refers to the Body of all Believers.Quote:
See above.
However, the Catholic Church also recognizes that the term Church refers to the Institution which Jesus established. And since the Bible says, "take him to the Church" (Matt 18:17) when one brother is disputing with another, that proves that the Bible recognizes the Church as an Institution with authority.
The Catholic Church also recognizes that the term Church refers to the gathing place of believers for the sake of worship. And since the Bible says "that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church" (1 Tim 3:15) This proves that the Bible recognizes that the Church is the place where believers gather to worship.
So, what I see above is that you don't understand the way the Catholic Church defines the word "Church". And that by reducing your definition of Church to strictly being the "body of all believers", you contradict Scripture.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I provided the Scripture. You haven't provided any verse to contradict the matter.Quote:
That once again is the doctruine of your denomination, not given in scripture.
That is like saying that the Holy Trinity does not exist because you don't see the word Trinity in Scripture. Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church. This can be proven Scripturally and Historically. The fact that the words, Catholic and Church are not found in Scripture together does not prove that the Catholic Church is not the same Apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ.Quote:
Indeed your denomination did not exist at the time that Jesus walked the earth in the flesh, nor did any denomination.
You keep chaniging the subject, but sure:Quote:
Matthew 28 And 18 therefore have absolutrely nothing to do with your denomination or any denomination. If you claim otherwise, show me where we find any denomination in the Bible.
The Catholic Church believes in the Body of Christ in the Eucharist:
Matthew 26 26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
The Catholic Church breaks bread daily:
Acts Of Apostles 2 46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;
The Catholic Church keeps one doctrine:
Romans 16 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.
The Catholic Church keeps the Traditions by Word and Scripture:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
The Catholic Church teaches that faith is expressed in one's works as well as one's words:
James 2 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without works; and I will show thee, by works, my faith.
The Catholic Church is universal:
Matt 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
There are many other signs of the Church which are in Scripture.
I didn't deny anything. But simply asked for details. Your statement is like the question, "when did you stop beating your wife." Its loaded. No matter how I address it, I'll sound like I'm justifying Church error.Quote:
Heh heh - it is you using the scattergun effect. The facts are acknowledged by even Catholic sources - are you denying this to be true?
So by asking you for details, I will demonstrate that you have been duped.
So, provide the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility. That will show that the Church teaches that the Pope is infallible only when speaking from the Chair of Peter.
Then provide the Catholic doctrine of Church Infallibility. That will show that the Church teaches that the Magisterium is infallible when gathered ecumenically in union with the Bishops and the Pope.
Then when you provide the data of the incident, I will provide the data from a Catholic source and prove that neither is the case. Although some Popes have erred, they have not done so when teaching the Church from the Chair of Peter.
And although some councils have made erroneous statements, no ecumenical council teaching in union with the Bishops of the entire Church and with the Pope has ever done so.
So, I repeat, provide the details. Now if you don't have any details, that is a different matter.
Huh? I asked you to point to your answer. I don't see it.Quote:
It is useless to discuss anything with you if your approach is going to be to deny if you don't like the answer.
Really? Could you provide the details. Cardinal John Henry Newman is a convert to the Catholic Church who is credited with saying, "To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant."Quote:
Even your Cardinal John Henry Newman disagreed with you on that point.
No. Are you denying that the Church which Jesus built is also an Institution vested with His authority and given the mission to make disciples in all nations? Are you denying that the Church is also the place where believers gather to worship?Quote:
Are you denying that this is the body of all believers?
No. That's just one verse. Scripture is clear that the Word of God is passed on orally as welll as in Scripture:Quote:
Implied in your opinion.
Luke 11 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.
John 10 35 If he called them gods, to whom to word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Acts Of Apostles 8 4 They therefore that were dispersed, went about preaching the word of God.
As I said, it is strongly implied.Quote:
Again, they heard them speak it, but you claimed that it told you to pass it along orally - still waiting for where it says that.
That still leaves you without any verse teaching Sola Scriptura.
Sincerely,
De Maria
You created a position which I did not take and argued against it rather than what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
It uses private interpretation. Indeed it insists that the interpretation of the leaders of the denomination be followed by it's members.Quote:
As I said, that is Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church does not permit private interpretation.
The scriptural definition.Quote:
How do you define "private interpretation"?
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV
Interpretation of men rather than interpretation of the Holy Spirit which is found in scripture.
You allow it to interpret itself and submit yourself and your beliefs to what it says.Quote:
How do you do that without interpreting the Bible?
My position has been stated many times. I am tired of repeating it.Quote:
Then you don't believe in Sola Scriptura? Please clarify your position.
Oh, I see. OK.
I do not care what your denomination teaches. I care about what scripture says. You will note that I did not comment on many of your responses simply because all they were were c/p of your denominational teachings.Quote:
Let me correct a misconception. The Magisterium defines Church as any institution whose Bishops were anointed by Bishops which can be traced to the Apostles...
Really?Quote:
And that by reducing your definition of Church to strictly being the "body of all believers", you contradict Scripture.
1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV
Now show me where your denomination existed (or any denomination) existed at the time of Christ and I will show you where one of your cardinals said Constantine created your denomination.
Heh heh heh, I prefer historical accuracy to denominational defences of their own actions. Regardless, you too easily try to distract the discussion onto side issues. If you honestly have been kept in the drak by your denomination, send me a PM or start a new thread. We don't need this one to be taken any further off track.Quote:
Then when you provide the data of the incident, I will provide the data from a Catholic source and prove that neither is the case. Although some Popes have erred, they have not done so when teaching the Church from the Chair of Peter.
J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.Quote:
Really? Could you provide the details. Cardinal John Henry Newman is a convert to the Catholic Church who is credited with saying, "To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant."
An institution is, at best, made up of both believers and non-believers and therefore there is no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ. Many churches and denominations have members of the body of Christ as members, but the institution itself is not the body of Christ, nor does being a member of any institution save you. Lastly, no denomination existed at the time of that Christ walked the earth in the flesh.Quote:
No. Are you denying that the Church which Jesus built is also an Institution vested with His authority and given the mission to make disciples in all nations? Are you denying that the Church is also the place where believers gather to worship?
This does not prove your point. I can read the Bible and people hear it - that does not mean that your denominational tradition is mandated by scripture.Quote:
No. That's just one verse. Scripture is clear that the Word of God is passed on orally as welll as in Scripture:
Luke 11 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.
This refers to the unsaved (read John 10:26 and Psalm 82 which Jesus referred to in this passage).Quote:
John 10 35 If he called them gods, to whom to word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;
So people preach from the Bible - that says nothing about your denominational traditions.Quote:
Acts Of Apostles 8 4 They therefore that were dispersed, went about preaching the word of God.
You said that already. My question is "Where have I substituted another argument for your actual argument." In other words, "what did you say which you feel I changed or ignored or replaced? And what did I replace it with?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I trace your objection back to these words:
Originally Posted by De Maria
It is a Catholic doctrine that the Word of God is not interpreted individually. Whereas, nonCatholics have reserved the right to interpret the Word of God in the Bible apart from Church Tradition from the inception of the Protestant movement.
To which you answered:
Again, please deal with what I do say, and do not use strawman arguments. As I pointed out, scripture is of no private interpretation.
Read my statement again. Did I say that YOU said anything? I simply reiterated that the Catholic Church teaches against private interpretation. And I mentioned that it is nonCatholics who teach private interpretation. Did I say that you teach private interpretation?
As we understand "private interpretation", it is the translation of Scripture without regard to Church history or Tradition. In other words, when we go to interpret Scripture, we take into account what Christians taught from the beginning regarding the Scripture we are reading.Quote:
It uses private interpretation. Indeed it insists that the interpretation of the leaders of the denomination be followed by it's members.
How does that work in practice? Lets take for example, Arius vs. Athanasius. Both Catholic, both reading Scripture and claiming to allow Scripture to interpret itself. But Arius claimed that Scripture taught that the Father alone is God. While Athansius said that Scripture taught that God is a Trinity, three Divine Persons in one God..Quote:
The scriptural definition.
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV
Interpretation of men rather than interpretation of the Holy Spirit which is found in scripture.
You allow it to interpret itself and submit yourself and your beliefs to what it says.
How did they resolve their dispute? Well, they followed the Scripture:
Matt 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
The Church resolved in favor of Athanasius and against Arius. Unfortunately, Arius did not accept the Church's judgement and the Church was forced to excommunicate Arius for teaching heresy. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. .
I thought you had said you believe in Sola Scriptura. But now you seem to be qualifiying that statement.Quote:
My position has been stated many times. I am tired of repeating it.
Now, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, please say so categorically and just for kicks, point to the definition in Scripture.
But you brought it up. You said, ""The Church as Roman Catholics interpret it is their denomination..." Now that I've proved that assumption of yours wrong, suddenly you don't care what the Church teaches? So, why did you bring it up then?Quote:
I do not care what your denomination teaches.
I assumed you wouldn't simply because you have yet to provide any Scripture for the doctrines which you believe in opposition to the Church. Sola Scriptura for instance.Quote:
I care about what scripture says. You will note that I did not comment on many of your responses simply because all they were were c/p of your denominational teachings.
But the Scriptures also depict the Church as an identifiable institution to which one can be brought for dispute resolution. That would be impossible if one must bring anyone to all believers.Quote:
Really?
1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV
I did. You said:Quote:
Now show me where your denomination existed
You will note that I did not comment on many of your responses simply because all they were were c/p of your denominational teachings.
I already provided my evidence. You ignored it. Now you claim I never provided it. All I know is, if Cardinal Newman ever made such a statement, he must have recanted. Why would anyone join a Church which they did not believe was established by Jesus Christ? I know I wouldn't.Quote:
(or any denomination) existed at the time of Christ and I will show you where one of your cardinals said Constantine created your denomination.
Actually, you've shown a propensity to ignore history. Your claim that Constantine formed the Church is a case in point. Your ignoring the case of Arius and Athanasius is another.Quote:
heh heh heh, I prefer historical accuracy to denominational defences of their own actions.
Its you who have been changing the subject as often as you can. I've answered every question you've thrown at me. You've yet to provide evidence in Scripture for Sola Scriptura.Quote:
Regardless, you too easily try to distract the discussion onto side issues. If you honestly have been kept in the drak by your denomination, send me a PM or start a new thread. We don't need this one to be taken any further off track.
Ok. I found it on the internet, here:Quote:
J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.
Newman Reader - Development of Christian Doctrine - Chapter 8
Lets go back to where Constantine was first mentioned:
You said:
To which I replied:Quote:
So you do not mean the Roman Catholic Church which was founded but Constantine in 325AD
In turn you said:Quote:
:
St. Constantine did not found a Church. He protected the Church from Roman persecution when he came into power as the Roman Caesar because his own mother, St. Helena, whom he loved was a faithful Christian.
So, read the chapter again and show me where Cardinal Newman said that Constantine founded the Church. I don't see it.Quote:
Even your Cardinal John Henry Newman disagreed with you on that point.
Then why did Jesus institute the Church? And why did He give the Church the power to bind and loose? And why is the Church called the Body of Christ?Quote:
An institution is, at best, made up of both believers and non-believers and therefore there is no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ. Many churches and denominations have members of the body of Christ as members, but the institution itself is not the body of Christ, nor does being a member of any institution save you. Lastly, no denomination existed at the time of that Christ walked the earth in the flesh.
Yes, I think it does. Reading the Bible outloud is an example of oral transmission of the Word of God. But the Bible does not say it is the only way. Preaching is another.Quote:
This does not prove your point. I can read the Bible and people hear it - that does not mean that your denominational tradition is mandated by scripture.
And our "denominational tradition" is mandated by Scripture since Scripture instructs us to keep the traditions and to obey our prelates.
Nowhere does Scripture tell us to disregard the Church.
In fact, even when Jesus disagrees with the Pharisees, who happen to be the Religious leaders before the Church, He instructs the people to obey them.
Matthew 23 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
It doesn't say it refers to the unsaved. Show me.Quote:
This refers to the unsaved (read John 10:26 and Psalm 82 which Jesus referred to in this passage).
I believe it does. And I've provided other evidence of Catholic Traditions which are mentioned in the Bible but you said you preferred to ignore them.Quote:
So people preach from the Bible - that says nothing about your denominational traditions.
Sincerely,
De Maria
You gave what you claimed is my position (which is not) and did not go back and quote what I actually said. Maybe it is easier to make up a position for me and then to attack it, but for the sake of accuracy, if you are going to claim something is my position - quiote me. Simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Or to re-phrase - translation of scripture without your denomination's (private) interpretation. You want everyone to follow what your denomination teaches. That is the core of the argument. Indeed every discussion that we have comes down to that one point - you believe that we should all follow the private interpretations of your denomination.Quote:
As we understand "private interpretation", it is the translation of Scripture without regard to Church history or Tradition.
No, you don't actually. You selectively take comments from various writers, all of whom come from your denomination after it was formed in 325AD.Quote:
In other words, when we go to interpret Scripture, we take into account what Christians taught from the beginning regarding the Scripture we are reading.
Bingo - they used scripture as their standard of doctrine, just as Jesus and the Apostles did, as we should.Quote:
How did they resolve their dispute? Well, they followed the Scripture:
I believe in Sola scriptura, but it is not up to you to re-define it.Quote:
I thought you had said you believe in Sola Scriptura. But now you seem to be qualifiying that statement.
I cannot believe that you actually made that statement. I'll bet that you if you were in the same room with me, you couldn't say it with a straight face. Now look, again I'll say it, if you are going to ignore everything that I say and not deal with what I have said, then what is your purpose in discussing this?Quote:
I assumed you wouldn't simply because you have yet to provide any Scripture for the doctrines which you believe in opposition to the Church. Sola Scriptura for instance.
But again, this has nothing to do with your denomination.Quote:
But the Scriptures also depict the Church as an identifiable institution to which one can be brought for dispute resolution. That would be impossible if one must bring anyone to all believers.
No m'am, you didn't. You provided your denominational teachings, but no evidence of any denomination, not yours or any others in scripture.Quote:
I already provided my evidence. You ignored it. Now you claim I never provided it.
Heh heh heh, I love it - when your own church leaders disagree with your position, you cannot deal with it, and hope that they recanted. You don't want to deal with the evidence, you can only believe what you want to believe.Quote:
All I know is, if Cardinal Newman ever made such a statement, he must have recanted. Why would anyone join a Church which they did not believe was established by Jesus Christ? I know I wouldn't.
Rose coloured glasses?Quote:
So, read the chapter again and show me where Cardinal Newman said that Constantine founded the Church. I don't see it.
""We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."
Notice that he even calls your denomination a "new religion".
Key point which can never be resolved between us as long as I rely upon scripture for the definition of church and you rely upon your denominational teaching.Quote:
Then why did Jesus institute the Church? And why did He give the Church the power to bind and loose? And why is the Church called the Body of Christ?
This is the essence of private interpretation. You take verses out of context and say what you think that they mean and say that that establishes your doctrine. This is why we are spinning wheels on here. As long your thoughts (private interpretation) and your denominations teaching (private interpretation) are the basis for your position, and mine is the context of scripture as it interprets itself, we have no hope of resolving our disagreements because we do not have a common basis of understanding.Quote:
Yes, I think it does.
Still not an endorsement of your denomination's traditions.Quote:
Reading the Bible outloud is an example of oral transmission of the Word of God. But the Bible does not say it is the only way. Preaching is another.
I keep asking for the references... still waiting.Quote:
And our "denominational tradition" is mandated by Scripture since Scripture instructs us to keep the traditions and to obey our prelates.
Sigh. Must I read it to you?Quote:
It doesn't say it refers to the unsaved. Show me.
John 10:26-27
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
NKJV
Does this sound like they were saved? Now read Psalm 82 on your own.
Right. I accept what the Bible teaches, not your denomination's private interpretations.Quote:
I've provided other evidence of Catholic Traditions which are mentioned in the Bible but you said you preferred to ignore them.
Where and when?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You still haven't shown where I said anything and attributed it to you.Quote:
Maybe it is easier to make up a position for me and then to attack it, but for the sake of accuracy, if you are going to claim something is my position - quiote me. Simple.
The Church is not private. It is very public.Quote:
Or to re-phrase - translation of scripture without your denomination's (private) interpretation.
Because I believe the Church teaches the truth.Quote:
You want everyone to follow what your denomination teaches.
Here's the difference between you and I. I am passing on the teaching of the Church which was established by Jesus Christ. This is in accordance with Scripture:Quote:
That is the core of the argument. Indeed every discussion that we have comes down to that one point - you believe that we should all follow the private interpretations of your denomination.
Matthew 10 40 He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.
But you want to teach your own teachings. You have already admitted you don't accept any denomination.
Well here's one from 100 to 150 ad, St. Iraneaus speaking about Tradition:Quote:
No, you don't actually. You selectively take comments from various writers, all of whom come from your denomination after it was formed in 325AD.
"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition... It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition" (Against Heresies 3,2:1).
"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies 3,4:1).
You've quoted me out of context. Here's what I actually said:Quote:
Bingo - they used scripture as their standard of doctrine, just as Jesus and the Apostles did, as we should.
It is clear the Scripture to which I refer tells us that the Church is the authority we turn to in order to resolve disputes.Quote:
How did they resolve their dispute? Well, they followed the Scripture:
Matt 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
The Church resolved in favor of Athanasius and against Arius. Unfortunately, Arius did not accept the Church's judgement and the Church was forced to excommunicate Arius for teaching heresy. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. .
I haven't. I've continually asked for you to define it and point to it in Scripture.Quote:
I believe in Sola scriptura, but it is not up to you to re-define it.
You've spent about four posts now claiming that you have provided the support for that doctrine. Wouldn't it be simpler to either repeat it or identify it in the post where you claim you posted it? I sincerely do not see your explanation.Quote:
I cannot believe that you actually made that statement. I'll bet that you if you were in the same room with me, you couldn't say it with a straight face. Now look, again I'll say it, if you are going to ignore everything that I say and not deal with what I have said, then what is your purpose in discussing this?
1. You just admitted that the Church does not necessarily mean the body of all believers.Quote:
But again, this has nothing to do with your denomination.
2. You have just admitted that the Church is an institution.
3. But it proves that my denomination exegetes Scripture correctly.
Its "man". And yes I did.Quote:
No m'am, you didn't. You provided your denominational teachings, but no evidence of any denomination, not yours or any others in scripture.
I don't have to show evidence of any denomination. Suffice to prove that my denomination's teachings are confirmed in Scripture.
The challenge stands. Where does Cardinal Newman state that St. Constantine formed the Catholic Church?Quote:
heh heh heh, I love it - when your own church leaders disagree with your position, you cannot deal with it, and hope that they recanted. You don't want to deal with the evidence, you can only believe what you want to believe.
No glasses at all. 20/20 on this side.Quote:
Rose coloured glasses?
As opposed to the Old religion of Judaism. Notice in the very same chapter, Cardinal Newman mentions Tertullian who lived between the year 160 and 200:Quote:
""We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."
Notice that he even calls your denomination a "new religion".
....yet it is plain from Tertullian that Christians had altars of their own, and sacrifices and priests. And that they had churches is again and again proved by Eusebius who had seen "the houses of prayer levelled" in the Dioclesian persecution; from the history too of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, nay from Clement [Note 10]. ...
So, if Cardinal Newman recognizes the Church existed in the time of Tertullian. How can he claim that St. Constantine formed the Church?
As I have shown, Scripture recognizes that the Church is a temple, a gathering place and an authoritative Institution built by Christ as well as the body of believers. The Catholic Church accepts all those definitions. You deny all except the latter.Quote:
Key point which can never be resolved between us as long as I rely upon scripture for the definition of church and you rely upon your denominational teaching.
I disagree with how you characterize my interpretation of Scripture. In fact, it is the reverse.Quote:
This is the essence of private interpretation. You take verses out of context and say what you think that they mean and say that that establishes your doctrine. This is why we are spinning wheels on here. As long your thoughts (private interpretation) and your denominations teaching (private interpretation) are the basis for your position, and mine is the context of scripture as it interprets itself, we have no hope of resolving our disagreements because we do not have a common basis of understanding.
I interpret Scripture according to the teaching of the Church. That means my interpretation is not private but shared by many.
The Church explains Scripture and teaches that we should interpret Scripture in the Tradition of the Church. The Church condemns private interpretation of Scripture which contradicts the Teaching of the Church through the centuries.
You, on the other hand, only believe what you interpret from Scripture yourself. Saying that you allow Scripture to interpret itself is illogical. What you read still has to be examined and understood in your brain. Since you don't care what anyone else says on the matter, your interpretation of Scripture is the very definition of private.
But it is a confirmation that the Church's teachings are in line with Scripture.Quote:
Still not an endorsement of your denomination's traditions.
Unlike you I can go back to messages and prove I have made them there, I can quote myself, or I can provide them anew. I've done so frequently:Quote:
I keep asking for the references... still waiting.
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Hebrews 13 17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
Yeah. And make the connection.Quote:
Sigh. Must I read it to you?
This is the verse which I posted:Quote:
John 10:26-27
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
NKJV
Does this sound like they were saved?
John 10 35 If he called them gods, to whom to word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;
To which you responded:
This refers to the unsaved (read John 10:26 and Psalm 82 which Jesus referred to in this passage).
Obviously, John 10:26 is referring to unbelievers which Jesus is addressing. And John 10:35 is referring to believers which the Scriptures refer to as gods to whom the Word of God was orally presented, spoken, in the past.
Two different ideas all together. Try again.
The point is that the Word of God is spoken. That is not addressed in Psalm 82. It is unrelated to the issue.Quote:
Now read Psalm 82 on your own.
The Church does not permit "private interpretation" which conflicts with Catholic Teaching.Quote:
Right. I accept what the Bible teaches, not your denomination's private interpretations.
However, it is obvious that your method of interpretation is essentially "private" since you eschew anyone's input.
Sincerely,
If you had taken the time to read what I said when I said it so many times, you would not need to ask after posting strawman arguments. I am tired of repeating it only to be mis-represented - now you put a little effort into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Heh heh heh nice try - read the context of the scripture - private refers to human interpretation rather than that of the Holy Spirit.Quote:
The Church is not private. It is very public.
You are quite welcome to follow your denomination and I likewise have the right to choose to follow the Bible.Quote:
Because I believe the Church teaches the truth.
I can test to see if this is true by going to scripture - God does not contradict himself - yet your denominational teaching contradicts God's word.Quote:
Here's the difference between you and I. I am passing on the teaching of the Church which was established by Jesus Christ.
Sigh - here we go with the strawman mis-representations again.Quote:
But you want to teach your own teachings.
Right. Just like Jesus was not a member of any denomination, nor were the Apostles.Quote:
You have already admitted you don't accept any denomination.
The quote from scripture that you gave showed that they followed scripture, and went to scripture to determine doctrinal truth. Precisely.Quote:
You've quoted me out of context. Here's what I actually said:
It is clear the Scripture to which I refer tells us that the Church is the authority we turn to in order to resolve disputes.
As I have, but you constantly ignore it, and refine it, and mis-quote me.Quote:
I haven't. I've continually asked for you to define it and point to it in Scripture.
And you ignore it and mis-quoted me when I have posted the information - so how many times do I need to keep telling you?Quote:
You've spent about four posts now claiming that you have provided the support for that doctrine. Wouldn't it be simpler to either repeat it or identify it in the post where you claim you posted it? I sincerely do not see your explanation.
Sigh - once again you mis-represent me. I did not say "The Church" - as you use that, it means your denomination. No such usage exists in scripture, because there are no denominations in scripture.Quote:
1. You just admitted that the Church does not necessarily mean the body of all believers.
2. You have just admitted that the Church is an institution.
3. But it proves that my denomination exegetes Scripture correctly.
Once again (and this is the same cycle as with other things - I repeat myself and you mis-represent and ignore what I say and then tell me repeat it again)
"An institution is, at best, made up of both believers and non-believers and therefore there is no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ. Many churches and denominations have members of the body of Christ as members, but the institution itself is not the body of Christ, nor does being a member of any institution save you. lastly, no denomination existed at the time of that Christ walked the earth in the flesh."
A statement does not make it so.Quote:
I don't have to show evidence of any denomination. Suffice to prove that my denomination's teachings are confirmed in Scripture.
Take off the dark glasses and maybe you can read it.Quote:
The challenge stands. Where does Cardinal Newman state that St. Constantine formed the Catholic Church?
Read again. You know when Constantine lived, and it was Constantine who brough the pagan things into the church to create a new religion.Quote:
As opposed to the Old religion of Judaism.
Sigh - isn't it good enough to deal honestly with what I said? Does it give you some empty satisfaction to shot down strawman arguments based upon things that I never said?Quote:
As I have shown, Scripture recognizes that the Church is a temple, a gathering place and an authoritative Institution built by Christ as well as the body of believers. The Catholic Church accepts all those definitions. You deny all except the latter.
Again, I do not care what your denomination teaches - I go by what scripture teaches.Quote:
The Church condemns private interpretation of Scripture which contradicts the Teaching of the Church through the centuries.
Strawman argument again - show me where I said that.Quote:
You, on the other hand, only believe what you interpret from Scripture yourself.
Not in the slightest.Quote:
But it is a confirmation that the Church's teachings are in line with Scripture.
I can, I have, I have repeated myself and you constantly ignore what I say and post strawmen. As a result, I am finding myself much less motivated to waste my time on you. I prefer to spend time with folk who are seeking truth, who will read what I said and respond to it and who will deal honestly with what I said.Quote:
Unlike you I can go back to messages and prove I have made them there, I can quote myself, or I can provide them anew.
And your claims have been refuted in context frequently.Quote:
I've done so frequently:
Now read the whole passage - and read Psalm 82 which Jesus refers to. It's not hard - it is only a few verses. Give it a shot on your own.Quote:
Obviously, John 10:26 is referring to unbelievers which Jesus is addressing. And John 10:35 is referring to believers which the Scriptures refer to as gods to whom the Word of God was orally presented, spoken, in the past.
Two different ideas all together. Try again.
You made an accusation which you never substantiated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Sure. But if you read it in context, St. Peter is saying, we were inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore listen to us.Quote:
heh heh heh nice try - read the context of the scripture - private refers to human interpretation rather than that of the Holy Spirit.
Lets go back to verse 16:
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness.
We didn't make this up. We were eyewitnesses of the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.
17 For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 18 And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.
We heard the word of God from on high proclaiming His beloved Son.
19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend,
We advise that you hear what we say, because we have the word of God.
as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
We are your light until the light of Christ returns again like the day star in your hearts.
20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
For Scripture was not inspired by man, but men of God were inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak and to write.
Correct.Quote:
ou are quite welcome to follow your denomination and I likewise have the right to choose to follow the Bible.
Show me.Quote:
I can test to see if this is true by going to scripture - God does not contradict himself - yet your denominational teaching contradicts God's word.
For instance. Sola Scriptura is no where mentioned in Scripture. But Scripture says that the Church is authoritative and the Pillar of Truth and that we should keep the Traditions in word and Scripture. So it seems that Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. While Catholic doctrine follows Scripture to the letter.
You yourself have said you don't follow any denomination. Therefore you follow your own teaching based on your understanding of the Bible.Quote:
sigh - here we go with the strawman mis-representations again.
Not really. There were divisions or denominations amongst the Jews. Jesus was not a Samaritan Jew, but an Israeli Jew. Then after Jesus fulfilled the Jewish law and established Christianity, He automatically became the very first Christian Jew.Quote:
Right. Just like Jesus was not a member of any denomination, nor were the Apostles.
Remember, the first Christians were considered a Jewish sect or denomination.
Yes. Catholics still follow Scripture. But we follow all Scripture. Whereas you pick. Such as this one. Obviously, this verse, Matt 18:17 says that the Church resolves disputes between Christians. But you won't accept that verse since it contradicts your belief .Quote:
The quote from scripture that you gave showed that they followed scripture, and went to scripture to determine doctrinal truth. Precisely.
But that isn't the only place where Scripture says that the Church is our authority:
Hebrews 13 17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
1 Cor 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Know you not that the saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know you not that we shall judge angels? How much more things of this world? 4 If therefore you have judgments of things pertaining to this world, set them to judge, who are the most despised in the church.
Where?Quote:
As I have,
Where?Quote:
but you constantly ignore it, and refine it, and mis-quote me.
You keep saying that I misquote you but you don't show me where I've done so.Quote:
And you ignore it and mis-quoted me when I have posted the information - so how many times do I need to keep telling you?
I use the word "Church" in all its senses. I accept that the Church is an institution built by Christ. That is one of the ways in which Scripture uses the term and one of the ways in which the Church which wrote the Scriptures uses the term as well.Quote:
sigh - once again you mis-represent me. I did not say "The Church" - as you use that, it means your denomination. No such usage exists in scripture,
But the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church are expounded by Scripture.Quote:
because there are no denominations in scripture.
Where did I misrepresent this statement of yours?Quote:
Once again (and this is the same cycle as with other things - I repeat myself and you mis-represent and ignore what I say and then tell me repeat it again)
True. Jesus said believers and unbelievers would be in His Church.Quote:
"An institution is, at best, made up of both believers and non-believers
That is why, the existence of non-believers in the Church does not invalidate the fact of whether it is the Body of Christ.
In message #113, you said:Quote:
and therefore there is no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ.
Now the question is - what is the "church". Is it your denomination or is it what the Bible says that it is, the body of all believers?
Are you reversing yourself now? I quote:
no denomination or church institution which can claim to be the body of Christ.
At the same time any institution can "claim" to be the Body of Christ. Whether they can prove it is another story.
As I have shown, but which you have continually ignored, the Catholic Church considers Her members to be members of the Body of Christ. But the Catholic Church considers all the Baptized to be members of the Body of Christ, whether they, themselves consider themselves Catholic or not.
So, in fact, it is you who keep misrepresenting what I have said.
Correct. Because their members are baptized.Quote:
Many churches and denominations have members of the body of Christ as members,
But its members are members of the Body of Christ.Quote:
but the institution itself is not the body of Christ,
True. But being an obedient and practicing member of the Catholic Church does save you. Because in obeying the teachings of the Catholic Church, one is obeying the Teachings of Jesus Christ.Quote:
nor does being a member of any institution save you.
Because there was as yet no Schism. However, the beliefs which were taught by the Apostles are still taught by the Catholic Church. And the belief in Sola Scriptura is no where represented in Scripture nor in the early Church.Quote:
lastly, no denomination existed at the time of that Christ walked the earth in the flesh."
So, the question remains:
Then why did Jesus institute the Church? So that anyone could ignore it?
And why did He give the Church the power to bind and loose? So that they could bind and loose nothing?
And why is the Church called the Body of Christ in Scripture? Is it just a cool nickname?
Exactly. That's why I've shown verse after verse proving it and you've just made unsupported statements.Quote:
A statement does not make it so.
I don't wear glasses.Quote:
Take off the dark glasses and maybe you can read it.
I don't see the words, "Constantine formed the Catholic Church":. And I do see where the Cardinal Newman says that the Church existed during the time of Tertullian who pre-existed Constantine by 150 years.Quote:
Read again. You know when Constantine lived, and it was Constantine who brough the pagan things into the church to create a new religion.
Man, this is like pulling teeth. Are you now saying that you accept that the term Church is:Quote:
sigh - isn't it good enough to deal honestly with what I said? Does it give you some empty satisfaction to shot down strawman arguments based upon things that I never said?
1. The institution built by Christ with authority to bind and loose.
2. The gathing place for Christian worship.
3. As well as the body of Christ.
Again, the Catholic Church's teachings are consistent with Scripture.Quote:
Again, I do not care what your denomination teaches - I go by what scripture teaches.
The only one of your teachings which you have divulged is Sola Scriptura and you have provided no Scripture verse to support it. While I have provided many verses which seem to contradict it.
Message #119Quote:
Strawman argument again - show me where I said that.
Message #113Quote:
:
You have already admitted you don't accept any denomination.
Right. Just like Jesus was not a member of any denomination, nor were the Apostles.
Quote:
This is the key point of our disagreement - you choose to submit yourself to your denomination. I do not submit myself to any denomination.
Again, I provide the evidence. You make statements with no support.Quote:
Not in the slightest.
Sure. I understand. Believe me, I feel the same way.Quote:
I can, I have, I have repeated myself and you constantly ignore what I say and post strawmen. As a result, I am finding myself much less motivated to waste my time on you.
Ok.Quote:
I prefer to spend time with folk who are seeking truth, who will read what I said and respond to it and who will deal honestly with what I said.
I don't think so.Quote:
And your claims have been refuted in context frequently.
I have. The point I made is that the Bible says the word of God is SPOKEN. You seem to be caught up on whom the word of God was spoken TO. But the whole point of this part of our discussion is that I am claiming that the Word of God is passed on by word. In the same message I mentioned other verses which depict the Word of God spoken to Jews and to Christians.Quote:
Now read the whole passage - and read Psalm 82 which Jesus refers to. It's not hard - it is only a few verses. Give it a shot on your own.
Luke 11 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.
Acts Of Apostles 8 4 They therefore that were dispersed, went about preaching the word of God.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:59 PM. |