Debating CoC preacher about Infant Baptism

[stevekehl]

Of course people need teachers. Is that what we’re disagreeing about? I agree that experienced Bible teachers are needed, the world is dying for lack of teachers. I thought you were saying I couldn’t understand Scripture and had to have someone tell me what it means. This is true for young Christians, that is the point of Sunday School and Bible studies. However, I believe we reach a point as we mature that we can look at Scripture and understand what it means. If the meaning is not clear then further study is needed. In addition, teaching/sermons must agree with Scripture. The Scriptures I quoted show that teaching was accompanied by studying Scripture. Paul and Silas’ message was checked by reading Scripture at Berea, and Luke called them a more noble people because of it. Timothy had been studying Scripture since his childhood, before Paul came to teach. Paul would have used his own writings, Scripture, to teach. Do you think Jesus had no idea which of His apostles would write letters that would become Scripture? Don’t you think Christ selected Paul specifically because of his knowledge and writing ability to be a minister to the Gentiles? Scripture interpreting Scripture, this means that if you are interpreting Scripture correctly, other passages will agree with it, like the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection. It is a guideline so someone doesn’t make up a doctrine based on one verse. If you believe the Bible is true I would say you have to believe Scriptures agree with each other.

 

[po18guy]

Of course people need teachers. Is that what we’re disagreeing about? I agree that experienced Bible teachers are needed, the world is dying for lack of teachers. I thought you were saying I couldn’t understand Scripture and had to have someone tell me what it means. This is true for young Christians, that is the point of Sunday School and Bible studies. However, I believe we reach a point as we mature that we can look at Scripture and understand what it means. If the meaning is not clear then further study is needed. In addition, teaching/sermons must agree with Scripture. The Scriptures I quoted show that teaching was accompanied by studying Scripture. Paul and Silas’ message was checked by reading Scripture at Berea, and Luke called them a more noble people because of it. Timothy had been studying Scripture since his childhood, before Paul came to teach. Paul would have used his own writings, Scripture, to teach. Do you think Jesus had no idea which of His apostles would write letters that would become Scripture? Don’t you think Christ selected Paul specifically because of his knowledge and writing ability to be a minister to the Gentiles? Scripture interpreting Scripture, this means that if you are interpreting Scripture correctly, other passages will agree with it, like the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection. It is a guideline so someone doesn’t make up a doctrine based on one verse. If you believe the Bible is true I would say you have to believe Scriptures agree with each other.

The Body of Christ would be far better off with one man teaching the world with authority, than it is with every man who possesses an ego and a bible teaching their own twist. I would not dare to assume that just anyone with some theological study is authorized to interpret sacred scripture. Such individual action, separated from the Church, is exactly what the bible warns against. Jesus Himself identifies the Church as the ultimate authority in all matters (Matthew 18:15-18). When the circumcision question arose, Paul - as hand-picked by Jesus as he was; as inspired a writer as he was; as authoritative a teacher and preacher as he was - went with Barnabas to the Church in Jerusalem for a ruling (Acts 15). This was the first Church council. The Church spoke and the matter was settled for all time.

Jesus did not command disputes to be settled by scripture. Jesus commanded that disputes be taken to the Church, which He founded in Matthew 16, with powers enumerated in Matthew 18. The bible speaks of authority, but it is not an authority unto itself - such authority is given by Christ to the Church.

It’s all in the bible. It is amazing that this is even at issue!

 

[pablope]

Of course people need teachers. Is that what we’re disagreeing about? I agree that experienced Bible teachers are needed, the world is dying for lack of teachers. I thought you were saying I couldn’t understand Scripture and had to have someone tell me what it means.

Keep in mind though, that how one reads or interprets the Bible is a product of how we were taught. Hence v14 of the famous 2Tim3 passage…know who your teachers and from whom you learned.

It is a product of one’s tradition.

That is why the CC stresses Apostolic succession, so that one who studies the Bible do not deviate from the deposit of faith that came down to us from the Apostles.

This is true for young Christians, that is the point of Sunday School and Bible studies. However, I believe we reach a point as we mature that we can look at Scripture and understand what it means. If the meaning is not clear then further study is needed. In addition, teaching/sermons must agree with Scripture.

 

[po18guy]

The Scriptures I quoted show that teaching was accompanied by studying Scripture. Paul and Silas’ message was checked by reading Scripture at Berea, and Luke called them a more noble people because of it.

However, without Paul’s oral Apostolic teaching, not one of the Bereans ever concluded that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Not one of them concluded that Trinitarian Baptism was the door to salvation. Not one of them ever concluded that they were saved by grace through faith. Neither did they know the particulars of the New Covenant. All they knew was that the promised Messiah was to come. Without Paul’s teaching, they would not have known that it was Jesus, or what they had to do to follow Him. Are you saying that they did not need Paul’s teaching? I hope not.

As to Luke, the prologue of his Gospel indicates that he wrote it only to confirm the oral paradosis that Theophilus had already received. Theopuhilus was a perfected Chrsistian without a single jot of New Testament scripture. He was a perfected Christian only because of the teaching that he receied via the oral paradosis.

Paul commanded Christians to keep to both scripture and the oral paradfosis. Yet, sola scriptura simply discards the oral paradisis.

Paradosis. It is the crux of the matter.

 

[stevekehl]

However, without Paul’s oral Apostolic teaching, not one of the Bereans ever concluded that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Not one of them concluded that Trinitarian Baptism was the door to salvation. Not one of them ever concluded that they were saved by grace through faith. Neither did they know the particulars of the New Covenant. All they knew was that the promised Messiah was to come. Without Paul’s teaching, they would not have known that it was Jesus, or what they had to do to follow Him. Are you saying that they did not need Paul’s teaching? I hope not.

As to Luke, the prologue of his Gospel indicates that he wrote it only to confirm the oral paradosis that Theophilus had already received. Theopuhilus was a perfected Chrsistian without a single jot of New Testament scripture. He was a perfected Christian only because of the teaching that he receied via the oral paradosis.

Paul commanded Christians to keep to both scripture and the oral paradfosis. Yet, sola scriptura simply discards the oral paradisis.

Paradosis. It is the crux of the matter.

Like I said before, teachers are needed, no argument there. The point I was making was that the Bereans studied Scripture to determine the truth of Paul and Silas’ message. No doubt Paul and Silas used OT prophecies about the Messiah and how Jesus fulfilled them to help their case. Scripture and teaching working together.
Luk 1:1 Many people have tried to tell the story of what God has done among us. 2 They wrote what we had been told by the ones who were there in the beginning and saw what happened. 3 So I made a careful study of everything and then decided to write and tell you exactly what took place. Honorable Theophilus,

It seems that many had tried to tell what happened, so Luke felt he needed to research and write down what really happened. Why is it that RCC talks about oral tradition like christians only had the spoken word for 300 years. Most scholars agree that Luke was written in the early 60s AD, Luke written before Acts, Acts written before the death of Paul (about 66 AD). Mark the first Gospel, may have been written less than 10 years after Jesus death and Matthew somewhere in between, also possibly within 10 years of the Crucifixion and the Epistle of Jame may be even earlier. Paul’s letters, obviously, written before his death; the epistles of Jon, Peter, Jude, between 60 and 90, with the Gospel of John and Revelations around 90 AD. This means most of what would become the New Testament was written within 35 years of Christ’s ministry. These letters were meant to be shared, Peter addressed his letters to Christians is several different regions, and to believers everywhere, Jude to all those chosen by God, James to the 12 tribes scattered around the world, Paul told the Collossians to share their letter with the church in Laodicea, and be sure they read the Laodicean letter. So these leters moved around the first century christian community. Like Henry Jones Sr. said in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, “I wrote it down so I wouldn’t have to remember.”

 

[po18guy]

It seems that many had tried to tell what happened, so Luke felt he needed to research and write down what really happened. Why is it that RCC talks about oral tradition like christians only had the spoken word for 300 years.

The canon was not settled until the late fourth century. The scriptures that exist today have been used since their production, but not all of them in all places at all times. There was no NT scriptura at all for the first 30 or so years, and the NT was not complete until about 70 years after Christ. We cannot believe that God would leave those early Christians hanging, can we? The oral Apostolic Tradition was the universal teaching they had, and has endured to this day. It was and is highly revered because the Apostles were eyewitnesses. I don’t think that anyone is complaining that those generatons somehow received deficient instruction because they had no bibles - rather Luke wrote only to back up what Theophilus had already been orally taught. Acts, by the nature of its content, had to come much later in Church history, as it could not exist until that history was made.

…only that Most scholars agree that Luke was written in the early 60s AD, Luke written before Acts, Acts written before the death of Paul (about 66 AD). Mark the first Gospel, may have been written less than 10 years after Jesus death and Matthew somewhere in between, also possibly within 10 years of the Crucifixion and the Epistle of Jame may be even earlier. Paul’s letters, obviously, written before his death; the epistles of Jon, Peter, Jude, between 60 and 90, with the Gospel of John and Revelations around 90 AD. This means most of what would become the New Testament was written within 35 years of Christ’s ministry.

Careful in following the teaching of scholars who have a vested interest in squeezing the scriptural time frame closer to Christ than they may actually have been. Those who adhere to sola scriptura are especially motivated to shorten that time. My source, Inside the Bible (excellent resource - have a look) puts it closer to AD 60, based on its content.

However, did Jesus intend for His Church to be scripture alone? Clearly not, since He left no scripture at all, and sent only Apostles forth, rather than scripture. Notice that the Apostles used scripture in support of their teaching, just as the Catholic Church does to this day. Since scripture is incomplete (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34), it seems also to be an incomplete basis for faith. Theophilus did not have any NT at all, and possibly only Moses and the prophets. Recall also that Jesus opened only the minds of the Apostles to understand scriptures (Luke 24:45). No such ability is mentioned as applying to average believers - even though we do possess the Holy Spirit. We cannot individually possess the interpretive authority of the Holy Spirit unless Jesus desired division in His Church - as the situation stands today. Since the Word is living, it needs living, breathing Apostles and their successors to further it and correctly interpret it.

These letters were meant to be shared, Peter addressed his letters to Christians is several different regions, and to believers everywhere, Jude to all those chosen by God, James to the 12 tribes scattered around the world, Paul told the Collossians to share their letter with the church in Laodicea, and be sure they read the Laodicean letter. So these leters moved around the first century christian community. Like Henry Jones Sr. said in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, “I wrote it down so I wouldn’t have to remember.”

But, not all letters in the NT are considered “catholic”, or universal letters. Neither were all of them shared until the universal Church collected them. Here, you also point out the absolute need for a unified Church with overarching authority. How else would such widely disbursed writings have been shared, preserved and canonized in those days of primitive conditions?

Certainly the letters were shared, but only on the command of the Apostle. I wonder why such a command was necessary, unless they would not have shared the letters. And, recall that the letters carried the weight they did only because of the living Apostle behind them.

The Catholic Church has never and will never diminish the importance of Sacred Scripture. However, it has and will continue to criticize the exclusion of the Apostolic Tradition (Paradosis) and the teaching authority (Magisterium) that Jesus gave to the Apostles.

I encourage you to entertain the notion that the bible is not, and never was intended as the sole rule of faith - simply because it places the individual ego in charge of interpretation. This has tended to produce the massive, endemic divisions that we see today. Love the Catholic Church or hate her, it remains unified because of the “old man” in charge. And, because of that beloved old man, it is able to resist pressure from the world to change.

 

[stevekehl]

You are correct that the Gospels didn’t record every detail of every action, nor did they need to. We have what we need. Interesting that you bring up Luke 24:45 where Jesus “helps them understand Scripture.” But the apostles weren’t the only followers there.
Luk 24:33 So they got right up and returned to Jerusalem. The two disciples found the eleven apostles and the others gathered together.
Luk 24:35 Then the disciples from Emmaus told what happened on the road and how they knew he was the Lord when he broke the bread. 36 While Jesus’ disciples were talking about what had happened, Jesus appeared and greeted them.
So since this passage differentiates between aposltes and disciples it is evident that Scripture was explained not just the apostles, but also ordinary disciples.
If certain letters were only to be applied to certain areas at certain times why does Paul tell Timothy that all Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, instruction, etc…
Let me ask you this, if an atheist is shipwrecked on a deserted island with the only book being the Bible, can they learn the true way to salvation, or are they doomed no matter what they do.

 

[NotWorthy]

You are correct that the Gospels didn’t record every detail of every action, nor did they need to. We have what we need. Interesting that you bring up Luke 24:45 where Jesus “helps them understand Scripture.” But the apostles weren’t the only followers there.
Luk 24:33 So they got right up and returned to Jerusalem. The two disciples found the eleven apostles and the others gathered together.
Luk 24:35 Then the disciples from Emmaus told what happened on the road and how they knew he was the Lord when he broke the bread. 36 While Jesus’ disciples were talking about what had happened, Jesus appeared and greeted them.
So since this passage differentiates between aposltes and disciples it is evident that Scripture was explained not just the apostles, but also ordinary disciples.
If certain letters were only to be applied to certain areas at certain times why does Paul tell Timothy that all Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, instruction, etc…
Let me ask you this, if an atheist is shipwrecked on a deserted island with the only book being the Bible, can they learn the true way to salvation, or are they doomed no matter what they do.

The Catholic Churches teaches Baptism of Desire.

 

[stevekehl]

I encourage you to entertain the notion that the bible is not, and never was intended as the sole rule of faith - simply because it places the individual ego in charge of interpretation. This has tended to produce the massive, endemic divisions that we see today. Love the Catholic Church or hate her, it remains unified because of the “old man” in charge. And, because of that beloved old man, it is able to resist pressure from the world to change.

Sorry, forgot to respond to this part. The true Christian guards against allowing personal glory to interfer with Bible study.
Gal 5:24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
The massive divisions more often than not, were caused by minor disagreements; how often should we have communion; should we use wine or grape juice for communion; should we baptise by immersion; sometimes divisions were simply personal disagreements gone too far, sad to say. The main thing is that most denominations agree on almost everything.
Having one person in charge is not always good, and is not the secret to unity in the RCC. The church was unified for 1500 years because anyone who disagreed was kicked out, in believe it’s called excommunication. After the Reformation, parishoners who disagreed with Catholic doctrine could leave and go to Protestant churches.

 

[po18guy]

You are correct that the Gospels didn’t record every detail of every action, nor did they need to. We have what we need. Interesting that you bring up Luke 24:45 where Jesus “helps them understand Scripture.” But the apostles weren’t the only followers there.
Luk 24:33 So they got right up and returned to Jerusalem. The two disciples found the eleven apostles and the others gathered together.
Luk 24:35 Then the disciples from Emmaus told what happened on the road and how they knew he was the Lord when he broke the bread. 36 While Jesus’ disciples were talking about what had happened, Jesus appeared and greeted them.
So since this passage differentiates between aposltes and disciples it is evident that Scripture was explained not just the apostles, but also ordinary disciples.
If certain letters were only to be applied to certain areas at certain times why does Paul tell Timothy that all Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, instruction, etc…
Let me ask you this, if an atheist is shipwrecked on a deserted island with the only book being the Bible, can they learn the true way to salvation, or are they doomed no matter what they do.

Is “sufficiency” or “what we need” all that you desire from scripture? Is this all you desire form God? Certainly not! There is more - much more, but how do you seek it? Where do you find it? Sufficiency may lead us to an “adequate” relationship with God. Is that really what we are called to seek? Consider: the entire range of life from being on life support in a hospital all the way to being ecstatic in the presence of the Lord qualifies as “life”. But, don’t we desire more than a “life support” level of depth in our relationship with God? Especially when it is available for the asking? And, if you restrict your faith to that fraction of God’s Word that was recorded in the bible, what are you missing? How will you ever know what you are missing? Jesus came that we might have life, and have it in abundance - not sufficiency.

For its own divine purpose, the bible tells us of an authoritative Church, with both Apostles and their successors being sent to proclaim the Gospel. The bible mentions Apostles, Disciples, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons and much more. What the bible doesn’t mention, or describe, or define, is itself. It took an authoritative Church to define the bible and present it to the world.

If you dissect scripture, you will note that in very many cases, Jesus spoke only to the twelve, and gave power only to the twelve. They passed it on to those who were proven in their eyes - not to just anyone. If your Church does not look like the Church in Acts (and most today do not), spend some time examining that early Church, since that is exactly how Jesus intended His Church to look and act “until the end of the age”.

I will never question your faith or your love of Christ. I would be a fool to do so. What I ask is simple: Look back to the early Church and realize that it was not sola scriptura. It was Apostolic, and used scripture as a vital and integral part of the Gospel message - but not as the basis for that message. The idea of sola scriptura came from one man (a Catholic, no less!) 1,500 years after Christ. How can that man-made idea lead you to the fulness of truth? Just some food for thought.

May Christ’s peace be with you.

Oh, to remain on topic, I forgot to mention infant baptism. There, I did it.

 

[po18guy]

Sorry, forgot to respond to this part. The true Christian guards against allowing personal glory to interfer with Bible study.

Sadly, based on the horribly shattered Body of Christ, far too few are truly taking your advice.

Gal 5:24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
The massive divisions more often than not, were caused by minor disagreements; how often should we have communion; should we use wine or grape juice for communion; should we baptise by immersion; sometimes divisions were simply personal disagreements gone too far, sad to say. The main thing is that most denominations agree on almost everything.

But, it is out of personal preference that Christ’s Body remains divided. The Mennonites split over the use of buttons on clothing, for heaven’s sake! This is not the Holy Spirit leading, it is the demon!

It is out of the ego that scripture is being misinterpreted even as we speak. I chose the Catholic Church for the sake of Christian unity, but have discovered so much more that I shall not live long enough to tell you of it all.

Having one person in charge is not always good, and is not the secret to unity in the RCC.

The secret is the Church, which is bigger than the Pope; bigger than the hierarchy; bigger than the bible - it is the living body of Christ.

There are a million (well, 35,000+ anyway) reasons for disunity. There is only one reason to deny the self, take up one’s cross and follow Jesus into unity - as He prayed to the Father.

The church was unified for 1500 years because anyone who disagreed was kicked out, in believe it’s called excommunication.

Those persons excommunicated themselves - the Church only recognized the fact. Excommunication is in the bible, too. Christianity is about obedience and denial of the self. You and I are to become less and the Church becomes more, since the Church is the visible Body of Christ on earth.

After the Reformation, parishoners who disagreed with Catholic doctrine could leave and go to Protestant churches.

Point to ponder: Notice that you are tacitly endorsing division here. In essence, are you not saying that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church? If not, then those who left the Church actually had the problem. After leaving, they obeyed immoral civil leaders, per the advice of Jesus and Paul, but disobeyed immoral Church leaders. Why any difference?

Those who remained faithful were later rewarded with a renewal of the Church. Luther, in turn, was shocked that his fellow reformers began falling away during his own lifetime. It was his own doctrine that introduced and enabled entropy in theology. Look at the mess today - all from private interpretation of scripture. Contrast this to the greatest Saints - even the Doctors of the Church, who were often treated horribly by the hierarchy (even imprisoned), yet remained faithful to the truth that the Church teaches, rather than finding an easier path. Today, those hierarchy members are long forgotten and are answering for their deeds, while those they maltreated are witnessing God’s glory.

Faith is not a business; it is not a consumer choice, such as most bible Churches have shaped themselves today. It is the embodiment of Luke 9:23 “If a man would follow Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, then come, follow Me” Note: Three steps.

The sorrowful state of the Body of Christ today is because far too many reverse this process and never get around to steps one and two.

 

[po18guy]

The Catholic Churches teaches Baptism of Desire.

The baptism of blood as well. Actually, the bible does nowhere prohibit infant baptism, and it does mention entire households being baptized, so it is strictly private interpretation and personal opinion which forbids it. What a blessing it is to have an authoritative Church to decide - just as she decided the circumcision question in Acts 15.

 

[pablope]

You are correct that the Gospels didn’t record every detail of every action, nor did they need to. We have what we need.

Steve, how do you know we have all that we need? How do you determine that? And who determines all that we need to have?

Look at Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

As this verse states, believing, having faith is not enough. Something else is needed to enter Heaven. So, where or how do you find what that “something else” is? And who is to tell you what that is?

Interesting that you bring up Luke 24:45 where Jesus “helps them understand Scripture.” But the apostles weren’t the only followers there.
Luk 24:33 So they got right up and returned to Jerusalem. The two disciples found the eleven apostles and the others gathered together.
Luk 24:35 Then the disciples from Emmaus told what happened on the road and how they knew he was the Lord when he broke the bread. 36 While Jesus’ disciples were talking about what had happened, Jesus appeared and greeted them.

 

[pablope]

So since this passage differentiates between aposltes and disciples it is evident that Scripture was explained not just the apostles, but also ordinary disciples.
If certain letters were only to be applied to certain areas at certain times why does Paul tell Timothy that all Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, instruction, etc…
Let me ask you this, if an atheist is shipwrecked on a deserted island

Is “sufficiency” or “what we need” all that you desire from scripture? Is this all you desire form God? Certainly not! There is more - much more, but how do you seek it? Where do you find it? Sufficiency may lead us to an “adequate” relationship with God. Is that really what we are called to seek? Consider: the entire range of life from being on life support in a hospital all the way to being ecstatic in the presence of the Lord qualifies as “life”. But, don’t we desire more than a “life support” level of depth in our relationship with God? Especially when it is available for the asking? And, if you restrict your faith to that fraction of God’s Word that was recorded in the bible, what are you missing? How will you ever know what you are missing? Jesus came that we might have life, and have it in abundance - not sufficiency.

Oh, to remain on topic, I forgot to mention infant baptism. There, I did it.

Just adding to what PO says here about suffiency…I would like to pose a question to ponder, Steve…

Has just reading the Bible allowed to grow in your state of relationship with Christ? Was it sufficient to allow you to grow in piety, in spirituality, in charity, in humility? Or do you find this somewhere else…outside of the Bible…to learn to grow in piety, in charity, in humility?

If you want to, reading on lives of Catholic saints will show what I am talking about…how these saints grew in their lives, such that their relationship with Christ became a united state of grace with His sufferings, such that some of them received the wounds of Christ on their bodies.

 

[pablope]

Sorry, forgot to respond to this part. The true Christian guards against allowing personal glory to interfer with Bible study.

The massive divisions more often than not, were caused by minor disagreements; how often should we have communion; should we use wine or grape juice for communion; should we baptise by immersion; .

 

[YourAverageJoe]

I need help with this.

He doesn’t buy that you can raise someone in the faith (like in OT when baby circumcized and raised as a Jew) because of Heb 8:11. Here’s what he wrote

The first question was based upon the statement in the catechism on page 316, “The proclamation of the word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, which is INSEPARABLE from BAPTISM”. My question is, when one baptizes an infant, is not faith separated from baptism and runs counter to the teachings of Jeremiah, Paul, Peter and Jesus concerning the nature of the New Covenant(Jer 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-12)? The second question, also based upon a statement in the catechism on pg 316, " Where infant baptism has become the form in which this sacrement is usually celebreated, it has become a single act encapsulating the prepatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very NATURE infant baptism requires a POST-BAPTISMAL cateechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its necessary place here". Question: How does one reconcile this statement, " a need for instruction after baptism" with Hebrews 8:11 “you will not go to your neighbor and say know the Lord for all will know me”?

Thanks.
Tezza

Hi Tezza
ask him to show you from scripture, a child born of Christian parents, but not baptized until reaching this “age of reason” (whenever if ever this takes place). He will reply with convert baptisms, but dont accept this answer. You are asking for children already born to Christian parents. The new testament was written in a period of about 60 years, so there was plentiful time for this to have been recorded in scripture but not…

Second, whole households were baptized as recorded in the new testament. Ask him where in scripture does it read children before the “age of reason” were not counted as part of the households count…

in Christ

 

[jcrichton]

The Jews did percieve Jesus authority, this is why the leaders conspired to kill Him. If He had no authority He would have been ignored. The Holy Spirit was not promised to the church as an institution, but as individuals. Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the Comforter and the Helper, people need comfort and help, not institutions. I Corinthians 12 talks of spiritual gifts, again, gifts to individuals, not a corporate body. As I said in my previous post people keep telling me Scripture is not the only authority but then give me Scripture to support different doctrine.

…and yet, Christ instituted a Church, delegated His Authority to that Church, and became its Head; promised that He would not leave them (those for whom He Prayed–that the Father not remove them from the world but that He Kept them Safe) orphans but that He would send them another Paraclete that would Reveal the total Truth and that would abide with them and in them–not promised to the world since the world did not know Him nor Believed in Him; this mystical Boby of Christ is the One that is professed by St. Paul as Being in One Spirit, having One Lord, One Faith, One Gospel, One Baptism… it is the same Body that found itself awaiting the Holy Spirit on that first Pentecost… that same Body to which the Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, added the thousands that were being saved (Acts 2:36-47).

Either Jesus’ judgment was amiss (when making all that to do with Kephas and the Keys of the Kingdom and the doors of hades/hell and the forginess of sin and what not, and all that “be one”…), which makes St. Paul’s speeches null when he spoke about the unity of the Body and the unifying function of the Holy Spirit and the “…God is not a God of disorder but order…” thing… or those of us who believe in lone-guns for Christ are missing the mark altogether.

How can the Holy Spirit take part in the splintering of God’s People, would He not be working against Jesus’ “Dream:” “One Shepherd, one flock?”

Again:

1 About the gifts of the Spirit, brothers, I want you to be quite certain… 4 There are many different gifts, but it is always the same Spirit… 7 The particular manifestation of the Spirit granted to each one is to be used for the general good… 11 But at work in all these is one and the same Spirit, distributing them at will to each individual. 12 For as with the human body which is a unity although it has many parts – all the parts of the body, though many, still making up one single body – so it is with Christ. 13 We were baptised into one body in a single Spirit, Jews as well as Greeks, slaves as well as free men, and we were all given the same Spirit to drink.

27 Now Christ’s body is yourselves, each of you with a part to play in the whole. 28 And those whom God has appointed in the Church are, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers; after them, miraculous powers, then gifts of healing, helpful acts, guidance, various kinds of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12:1-13, 27-28)

True anyone can decide to go it alone; we can all shun the Holy Spirit, and Christ for that matter, but the fact remains: One Shepherd and one flock!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Well, a Catholic started this thread so someone asked me, I was invited in. I started talking about infant baptism if you want to go back to post #158. So if all these all these denominations practice infant bapism then I do disagree with them. If you care to read it I said a person’s baptismal status didn’t concern me, but that I would share what I believed and why. Then we moved on to I can’t trust Scripture. Then it was that I can’t interpret Scripture. Then it was I have to interpret Scripture through the lens of what others have written.
Paul said Scriptural study will lead a person to salvation.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Study of Scripture leads to faith in Jesus and perfecting faith through good works.
And again to Timothy:
1Ti 4:13 Until I arrive, be sure to keep on reading the Scriptures in worship, and don’t stop preaching and teaching.
Scripture should accompany worship, teaching and preaching; not tradition or these other writings I keep hearing about. Luke even praised worshippers who put Paul’s teaching to the test by comparing it to Scripture.
Act 17:10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Nehemiah was leading worship for people returning from exile, decades in a foreign land. If you continue to read it says the people wept and grieved when they heard the Law, which was Scripture. While there were men there to explain the Law the crowd evidently understood enough on their own to be grieved that they had violated God’s law. No one is arguing that the unsaved and newly converted need someone to teach them. And no, I’m not immune from making mistakes, which is why I take Philippians 2:12 so seriously.
Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
I don’t just throw our opinions or try to find Scripture that fits a preconcieved doctrine, start with Scripture, find other Scripture that agrees or refutes the interpretation, Scripture interprets Scripture. I think the Catholic teaching is Amicae scripturarum lites, utinam et nostrae.

…as it has been said many times many… your problem is interpretation. If you care to look carefully, the Apostles are speaking about the Written Scriptures (Old Testament) and the freshly inked Epistles… yet, it is those very same Apostles (St. Peter and St. Paul) that give the New Testament Written Scriptures the Authenticity/Authority of being the Word of God–this Revelation comes through the Holy Spirit! Hence it follows: God > Apostle > Scriptures:

27 Now Christ’s body is yourselves, each of you with a part to play in the whole. 28 And those whom God has appointed in the Church are, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers; after them, miraculous powers, then gifts of healing, helpful acts, guidance, various kinds of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12:27-28)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Individual believers. John wrote that individuals were to test the spirits.
1Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
John the Baptist, speaking to the crowds said the Holy Spirit would be given to each one by Jesus.
Mark 1:7 And he preached, saying, “After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
There are others:
1Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
Romans 5:3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
2Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
2Timothy 1:14 By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.

…do you not see how wrong you are, a fellowhsip of one?

23 since, as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body,
24 and as the Church is subject to Christ,
25 just as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself for her
26 to make her holy by washing her in cleansing water with a form of words,
27 so that when he took the Church to himself she would be glorious, with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless. (Ephesians 5:23a, 24a, 25b, 26-27)

…also:

9 It is for them that I pray. I am not praying for the world but for those you have given me, because they belong to you. 10 All I have is yours and all you have is mine, and in them I am glorified. 11 I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep those you have given me true to your name, so that they may be one like us. 12 While I was with them, I kept those you had given me true to your name. I have watched over them and not one is lost except one who was destined to be lost, and this was to fulfil the scriptures. 13 But now I am coming to you and I say these things in the world to share my joy with them to the full. 14 I passed your word on to them, and the world hated them, because they belong to the world no more than I belong to the world. 15 I am not asking you to remove them from the world, but to protect them from the Evil One. 16 They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world. 17 Consecrate them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world, 19 and for their sake I consecrate myself so that they too may be consecrated in truth. 20 I pray not only for these but also for those who through their teaching will come to believe in me. 21 May they all be one, just as, Father, you are in me and I am in you, so that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe it was you who sent me. 22 I have given them the glory you gave to me, that they may be one as we are one. 23 With me in them and you in me, may they be so perfected in unity that the world will recognise that it was you who sent me and that you have loved them as you have loved me. 24 Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they may always see my glory which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 Father, Upright One, the world has not known you, but I have known you, and these have known that you have sent me. 26 I have made your name known to them and will continue to make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and so that I may be in them. (St. John 17:9-26)

Jesus speaks about His Community (the One He kept safe and returned to the Father–made up Kephas and the other Apostles) in terms that would later be interpreted by St. Paul as the Body/Church of Christ… no individual fellowship here!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Having one person in charge is not always good, and is not the secret to unity in the RCC. The church was unified for 1500 years because anyone who disagreed was kicked out, in believe it’s called excommunication.

I think that you’ve reache a circular argument… the Church was unified for 1500 years but it took dissention from one of its members (and the length of time the Vatican asked for his return to the Unity) and the politically charged divisions amongst the ruler clans coupled with the extreme poverty and the promise of “freedom” from the purported oppressive Authority of the Church to create a few separated brothers… it took less than that to create the myriad of “true church of Christ” that exist in today’s “Christendom.”

After the Reformation, parishoners who disagreed with Catholic doctrine could leave and go to Protestant churches.

…but wait, why did they need churches if they’d discovered “freedom” from the Church’s Authority… do you see the circular argument again?

Maran atha!

Angel