"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tonks40
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm, since you posted the same thing twice, I will repaste my same response:

Ed you are missing the point of that post. I posted that to show you the official Catholic teaching on infusion, to clear up any misunderstanding about what benedictus said. This is why you can’t pit Catholics against each other; we have an authoritative tradition as well. You haven’t grasped this, which is why you seem to think interesting little ideas like NAB footnotes and commentary being the “final solution” lol. I on the other hand, can pit Protestants aginst each other, because they have no tradition, except their own conscience. Your opinion is no better than mine, according to your theology, and I’m interested why you never took me up on my offer to post many many links leading you to Protestants that disagree with you about baptism. Why are you right? Why, Ed? Why are they wrong? Who really has the correct interpretation, you? You can’t even remember what you write half the time, why should I believe you? Do you see why this could be seen as a fruitless endeavor?
 
And considering the fact that I am the one that challenged you to define belief, you should be the one providing Scripture, that says that Jesus was wrong when He equated it with obedience. It’s lose lose for you, because if you DO manage to contradict Jesus, well, you just contradicted Jesus. Your aversion to Jesus’ statement is a direct result of your flawed belief that it would be a work necessary for salvation. So in spite of admitting that’s what Jesus said, you are forced to say that’s not what he really meant. Good Luck Ed. Fight the good fight
 
Posted by Nathan
Ed you are missing the point of that post. I posted that to show you the official Catholic teaching on infusion, to clear up any misunderstanding about what benedictus said. This is why you can’t pit Catholics against each other; we have an authoritative tradition as well. You haven’t grasped this, which is why you seem to think interesting little ideas like NAB footnotes and commentary being the “final solution” lol. I on the other hand, can pit Protestants aginst each other, because they have no tradition, except their own conscience. Your opinion is no better than mine, according to your theology, and I’m interested why you never took me up on my offer to post many many links leading you to Protestants that disagree with you about baptism. Why are you right? Why, Ed? Why are they wrong? Who really has the correct interpretation, you? You can’t even remember what you write half the time, why should I believe you? Do you see why this could be seen as a fruitless endeavor
Click to expand...
Nathan I can very well understand your tirade because benedictus2 very clearly contradicted your “infusion” theology. It’s there in Plain English! Now show me where I can’t remember what I wrote. ED O.
 
I did Ed, I showed above in post 670 how you forget what you write, so yeah… I am saying quite simply that Benedictus is wrong in a polite way, while backing it up with authoritative Catholic teaching. You, on the other hands, have no concept of Catholic authority despite the fact you supposedly used to be Catholic, and so treat all Catholic sources as equally authoritative. You are wrong before you even start if you think that way. How I defend a teaching is up to me, but the teaching itself will be found in the councils, catechisms, enyclicals, etc. Hope that clears things up for you. I hope you actually digest what I am writing.
 
And also, you avoided yet again, why you are right and other Protestants wrong? Does it not strike you as odd and a bit arrogant to assume that the majority of Christians believe in baptismal regeneration yet they are wrong? Since their interpretation is “guided by the Holy Spirit” and thus is not divided, you are implying that your denomination is the only one the Holy Spirit is with. Does that not strike you as arrogant, Ed? Your denomination doesn’t even make the claim to be the same Church started by the apostles and thus infallible, yet we are to believe the Holy Spirit is with your denomination. That means that we are to accept YOUR interpretation, based off of intellect. That is arrogance, Ed.
 
Posted by Nathan
Ed above in post 670 how you forget what you write, so yeah… I am saying quite simply that Benedictus is wrong in a polite way, while backing it up with authoritative Catholic teaching. You, on the other hands, have no concept of Catholic authority despite the fact you supposedly used to be Catholic, and so treat all Catholic sources as equally authoritative. You are wrong before you even start if you think that way. How I defend a teaching is up to me, but the teaching itself will be found in the councils, catechisms, enyclicals, etc. Hope that clears things up for you. I hope you actually digest what I am writing
Click to expand...
Nathan, this is what I asked you on post 669, " Okay! Show me were I said that Ananais received the Holy Spirit by the laying of hands". In reply you posted 670.

My question to you in plain English is Ananais receiving, as YOU SAY on post 669, or is Ananais infusing the Holy Sprit upon Paul? ED O.
 
EdOsiecki said:
You badly mis-read what I said there
ED.O
Click to expand...
Ed-
I did ?
Then please restate this to say what you meant to say. Here is what you said:

“Also would you show me the Scripture where it states that the epistles can’t negate (overide) what Jesus says.”

Am I that poor at reading comprehension ? What your statement says to me is that the epistles can negate what Jesus says, because the Bible does not say that they can’t.

I find it amazing that any Christian, even an Ect. Christian, would say such a thing.
The entire Bible is the Word of God.
God is Truth.
He does not, and cannot , contradict himself.

If Jesus (aka God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity) says something, it is Truth.
If other passages in the Bible say something that SEEMS to contradict Jesus, it is a problem with our own understanding . When that seems the case, we need to look more carefully to see if we can determine what is really being said.
In many cases, the problem lies in our misunderstanding of the context, culture, or language involved.
Sadly, in some cases (i am justified in saying this because of my own Protestant background), the meaning of verses can also be twisted to fit our own predetermined or prejudiced idea of what WE WANT the verse to say.
 
He is not receiving or infusing in any way when Ananias lays hands upon Saul, so do not create a massive straw man Ed. I was very clear on this with you earlier.

The only time Saul can receive the Holy Spirit salvificly is if he has his sins washed away. He doesn’t have his sins washed away until after he gets up and is baptized, not at the moment Ananias had his hands on him. This makes sense because Ananias laid hands on him for HEALING, not for the Holy Spirit, because he had not been baptized, and apostles do not confirm anybody unless they have been baptized first. This is why after the scales fell of he said to arise, be baptized, and wash away his sins.

This argument doesn’t work for you anyway because you believe Saul already had the Holy Spirit upon belief. You are merely changing your position for the purposes of this argument, and that is a bit contradictory, Ed.
 
benedictus2 said:
Now I am in your cheering squad! Thank you for picking up on that. Don’t know how I missed that one.

Surely Ed has got to be kidding! Apostles can negate what Jesus said??!!! Wow, there must be apostles then who are higher than God :confused:. Hmm, now I know why they go to Paul all the time.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Heck, let’s all cheer each other, that’s what Christ would want, not to mention our Blessed Mother. They must both be smiling at our struggles here. Important to remember tho, that they ARE both watching, and they do require of us a spirit of charity toward each other !
 
onenow1 said:
=onenow1, Indeed ! Hence the saying, they rob Peter, to pay Paul.

Wow, thats’ a new one on me. Is that really where that saying comes from ! ? ?
My protestant past comes to mind again.
Yikes !
Click to expand...
 
Posted by Nathan
And also, you avoided yet again, why you are right and other Protestants wrong?
Click to expand...
Nathan, BALONEY! What you try to do here is to try to make my belief unique from other Protestants. Which is False. Something you can’t prove. That’s one of your intimidation methods that you use when you are caught.
Does it not strike you as odd and a bit arrogant to assume that the majority of Christians believe in baptismal regeneration yet they are wrong?
Click to expand...
“Majority of Christians” doesn’t faze me. What you really mean is the majority of Catholics believe in baptism regeneration because much of them believe what they are told and never read the Bible. Jesus said, Mat 7:14,“But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a FEW find it.” You make statements, I present Scripture.
Since their interpretation is “guided by the Holy Spirit” and thus is not divided, you are implying that your denomination is the only one the Holy Spirit is with.
Click to expand...
I never said that or even implied such NONSENSE. Again, you are trying to belittle me.
Does that not strike you as arrogant, Ed? Your denomination doesn’t even make the claim to be the same Church started by the apostles and thus infallible,
Click to expand...
My church started with the apostles you have no exclusive right to them. Millions by the millions came OUT because of the corruption. That’s history. Only the Bible is infallible because it’s God inspired. It took your church until 1850 A.D. to proclaim infallibility, Why did it take so long to determine such an important issue? You have the right to believe anything your church teaches, I have the right to believe what the Word of God teaches, which isn’t tainted by man.
yet we are to believe the Holy Spirit is with your denomination. That means that we are to accept YOUR interpretation, based off of intellect. That is arrogance, Ed
Click to expand...
Nathan , you keep referring to my denomination. Did I ever tell you what it is? NO! ED O.
 
Posted by Nathan
For instance, you stated that the laying on of hands is merely sealing the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
I NEVER said that the laying of hands is SEALING the presents of the Holy Spirit, I even quoted from the Catholic Bible that the laying of hands is the INFUSING of the Holy Spirit.
However, you have also stated that the Holy Spirit cannot dwell in a sinful man. Because of this, you run into the contradiction that Ananias “received” the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands,
Click to expand...
LOOKI! what you are saying here! Since when are we talking about Ananais receiving the Holy Spirit?
 
Nathan, what happened did you fall asleep, I’m waiting for your reply to my post 683. ED O.
 
EdOsiecki said:
By what you state here indicates that you no nothing about Petecostalism. Allow me to show you something about tongues. Mark 16:15-16, “Go into the world and preach the good news to all creation. v16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned, v17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues----” Now you are a “water” baptized believer aren’t you? What does this mean to you, “they will speak in new tongues”? ED O.
Click to expand...
I’ve said a few times I’m a novice, using u as a filter here and considering your view as hope you contemplate what I write.

Are u saying all who recieve HS will speak in tounges , heal sick, be safe with poison water etc… Per mark 16: 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

What about below

1cor 11:34 - 1 Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would not have you ignorant…
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit…
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all…
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal…
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:… Etc

regarding infusing , I need to read more
 
Nathan, Ed thinks you are talking about Ananias himself receiving the Holy Spirit, and this is due to the fact that you inadvertently implied it in a previous post as follows
Nathan Wagar:
Because of this, you run into the contradiction that Ananias “received” the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, but did not have his sins washed away
Click to expand...
Ed is now confused because he knows it’s Saul he’s talking about, but now thinks that you are accusing him of talking about Ananias.

Anyway, a minor point perhaps…but just trying to play pseudo-referee here as I spot unnecessary obstacles to an otherwise compelling debate…

carry on…
 
Ed, a few questions for you brother…answer at your leisure if you’d like…
  1. Do you acknowledge that Catholics believe, regardless of exactly the precise moment of Holy Spirit indwelling in a person, that faith in Christ is absolutely necessary for the indwelling to occur at all?
  2. If so, does it occur to you that you simply believe that the Spirit indwells mysteriously from within the supernatural (metaphysical) realm, while we believe that it happens mysteriously through a joining of both the supernatural realm and the physical realm?
  3. Do you see that you’re simply trying to argue that the physical realm can have no part in the indwelling process, even though we concede that it is also supernatural transference? Does it really make sense to you that God would never use the physical realm in any way as a platform for the movement of the Spirit?
Is this really a debate that matters that much to you? the precise timing of indwelling? Not that it’s not an intriguing debate, mind you. I’ve personally enjoyed lurking.
  1. Why do you use terms such as indwelling, all the while denying infusion, but championing imputation? Do you realize that “indwelling” directly connotates infusion, the notion of something DWELLING withIN something else? Imputation is 180 degrees out from the concept of “indwelling”. What do you think?
 
EdOsiecki said:
I know that baptism is commanded per Mat 28:19, the point of contention is when does the indwelling of the Holy Spirit come into the human body ( A ) upon belief In the name of Jesus ( B ) Or at “water” baptism. I say the former
Click to expand...
It can’t be upon belief in the name of Jesus. Many belive but they do not necessarily receive the Holy Spirit.
If you look at the baptism of Jesus, the Holy Spirit descended at his baptism. True it happened after He came out of the water, but nonetheless it happened at that event.
Nathan very clearly stated several times that the Holy Spirit is INFUSED by “water” baptism.
Click to expand...
Yes it happens during the baptism but not necessarily as you are immersed/dipped in the water. It happens during the RITE of baptism, at any moment within that rite.
Here’s where you and I disagree, 1 Pet 3:21 very clearly states that “water” baptism is a pledge of a good conscience towards God.
Click to expand...
No it does NOT say it is a pledge of good conscience:

Here is the verse : "This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an **appeal **to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. "

Besides you cannot ignore the fact that it is very clearly written that it is baptism which saves you now.
It’s the precious Blood of Jesus that forgives us from our sins in Mat 26:28, Jesus is talking, “This is my blood -----which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Click to expand...
The blood of jesus DOES NOT forgive us our sins. The blood of Jesus is SHED / POURED OUT for the forigveness of sins. There is a difference there.
And verified in Rev 1:5, “To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His Blood.”.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Jesus freed us from our sins by His blood. Water baptism baptises us into His death so that we can rise with Him.
So Peter says "water’ baptism is asking God to forgive us of our sins. While the belief in Jesus’s Blood is what atoned for the sins.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. The belief in Jesus’ Blood is NOT what atoned for the sins. Jesus atoned for the sins.
That’s when the process is complete and we are Sealed by the Holy Spirit exactly what Eph. 1:13 states.
Click to expand...
Which happens at conrfirmation. This process is to make us soldiers for Christ. Baptism incorporates us into the body so that we can then be made soldiers for Him.
That is true with the evidence of speaking in tongues. If you don’t speak in tongues what evidence do you have that you received the Holy Spirit? ED O.
Click to expand...
By displaying the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Glossalia (speaking in tongues) is manifested not just by those “sealed” by the Holy Spirit but by Pagans as well. As a matter of fact, speaking in tongues are more associated with the bad spirit than the good one.
 
EdOsiecki said:
Cheerleader Bob, tell me were the 109 people other than the apostles in the upper room saved prior to Pentecost or not? ED O.
Click to expand...
Yes, if they were baptised. The problem is the way you use the word “save”.

Salvation is not a one time event. This is where the problem arises because then you have doctrines like OSAS.

It is rather a case of BEING SAVED because salvation is an ongoing process. Christ’s life, death and ressurection has so to speak caused the outpouring of saving grace. Now what we need to do is to avail of that grace.
 
EdOsiecki said:
By what you state here indicates that you no nothing about Petecostalism. Allow me to show you something about tongues. Mark 16:15-16, “Go into the world and preach the good news to all creation. v16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned, v17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues----” Now you are a “water” baptized believer aren’t you? What does this mean to you, “they will speak in new tongues”? ED O.
Click to expand...
Mark 15:16-17 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages.

And this is exactly what happened at Pentecost. They started speaking languages new to them because they were able to speak the languages of all the people gathered there. And the purpose of this is so that they can proclaim the gospel to every one whatever the language whatever the creed, gentile or jew.

And yes, take note of the fact that it is written that the precondition for salvation is more than just belief. You must also be baptised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top