For our non-catholic followers: A what and if Question

[SteveVH]

My source is the biblical account.
Belief necessary for baptism:
[Act 8:12 NASB] 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

[Act 8:36-38 NASB] 36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Sense of urgency:
[Act 22:16 NASB] 16 ‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

From my experience, the catholic church de-emphasizes belief as a prerequisite and there isn’t a focus on the urgency of baptism when so many people have to wait for Easter or parents wait to baptize their infants because they’re busy planning it as an event.

Each and every quote you gave had to do with adults seeking Baptism. Of course their faith would have to precede their Baptism otherwise they would not ask for it in the first place.

What you have omitted are the passages which tell us that entire households were Baptized and also that Baptism has taken the place of circumcision. Jewish males were circumcised at eight days old. What kind of faith does an eight day old infant have?

Nevertheless, faith is always involved. Sometimes it is the faith of the parents.

[2Ti 3:16-17 NASB] 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

If you can be equipped for every good work, what else is there?

I know you’ve seen this scripture before, and mostly used to show how the bible is the only authority but I am using it now to show that it contains all that we actually need. At the time of this writing not all of the written word was complete, but it does specify ‘all scripture’ which would obviously include scripture to come.

But you cannot just gloss over the fact that the verse says that all Scripture is profitable, rather than “sufficient”. And no one would argue that the Scriptures do not equip us for every good work, but only if read through the lens of Sacred Tradition from whence the New Testament came.

You cannot claim that the New Testament is even Scripture without deferring to the judgment of the Catholic Church who discerned what was the word of God from what was not. Yet you then think you can pick up this book and correct the judgment of the Church as to what the New Testament (and the Old, for that matter) really mean. Amazing.

Well, I just showed you how my first premise didn’t fail so here we are.

Not really. I just showed you how it did fail. You must rely on the Church to even know what is Scripture from what is not. You then simply dismiss the church’s understanding of its own Book.

The bible shows us what is needed for a church to be established. There are examples of churches springing up in the new testament without an apostle personally establishing it. Titus and Timothy, for example, chose overseers. Though ordered by Paul for this work, they chose overseers based on criteria Paul gave them and did not merely act as a messenger for personal appointments by Paul.

Yes, it is called apostolic succession. Very Catholic. Titus and Timothy were appointed by the Apostles as bishops. And so it continues today.

I didn’t say that was the purpose of confession. I only mentioned something the leaders in a congregation are responsible for. Obviously it has to do with an unrepentant individual. I said that already.

I do not subscribe to “once saved always saved” because it is not biblical. I also said nothing against the forgiveness of sins, but mentioned another reason confessing to one another is helpful.

But while there might be other benefits to confession, the primary purpose is the forgiveness of sins, yes? And Christ gave the authority to forgive sins to the Church. Why would he do this if we were not to confess our sins to the Church?

 

[concretecamper]

@Traverse:

2 Timothy 3:16 is where Paul is referring to the OLD TESTAMENT. The NT wasn’t even close to being assembled. So are you telling me that only the OT is profitable? There is no way Paul could have been referring to the NT.

 

[Traverse]

Each and every quote you gave had to do with adults seeking Baptism. Of course their faith would have to precede their Baptism otherwise they would not ask for it in the first place.

What you have omitted are the passages which tell us that entire households were Baptized and also that Baptism has taken the place of circumcision. Jewish males were circumcised at eight days old. What kind of faith does an eight day old infant have?

Nevertheless, faith is always involved. Sometimes it is the faith of the parents.

The mistake you’re making is assuming that households meant infants. Nothing in scripture leads us to that point on its own. And, unfortunately, your comparison of baptism with circumcision doesn’t work.

[Rom 2:29 NASB] 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

[Col 2:11-12 NASB] 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Baptism is equated with a circumcision of the heart, which was also seen as a distinct thing from physical circumcision in the old testament. Consider this passage…

[Jer 4:4 NASB] 4 “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds.”

An infant cannot experience circumcision of the heart.

But you cannot just gloss over the fact that the verse says that all Scripture is profitable, rather than “sufficient”. And no one would argue that the Scriptures do not equip us for every good work, but only if read through the lens of Sacred Tradition from whence the New Testament came.

You cannot claim that the New Testament is even Scripture without deferring to the judgment of the Catholic Church who discerned what was the word of God from what was not. Yet you then think you can pick up this book and correct the judgment of the Church as to what the New Testament (and the Old, for that matter) really mean. Amazing.

You’re basically dodging the point. You claim it equips us for every good work, then dismiss the very point. What other works are there if we are properly equipped by scripture alone?

The discussion of the new testament canon is another matter altogether. I would dispute that we only have the bible because of the catholic church. Christians living in the first two centuries would too because there hadn’t been any councils to discuss it yet, but they we know they had completed scripture. It was all written before the close of the first century. It was NOT sitting around waiting to be decided upon. The church had the complete word before anyone decided it needed to be decided upon.

Not really. I just showed you how it did fail. You must rely on the Church to even know what is Scripture from what is not. You then simply dismiss the church’s understanding of its own Book.

Well, I showed you how you ignored the point so bleep bloop.

Yes, it is called apostolic succession. Very Catholic. Titus and Timothy were appointed by the Apostles as bishops. And so it continues today.

To be fair, it is only catholic tradition that maintains they were bishops. The bible never states they were ordained as such. All we really know is that they were teachers.

But while there might be other benefits to confession, the primary purpose is the forgiveness of sins, yes? And Christ gave the authority to forgive sins to the Church. Why would he do this if we were not to confess our sins to the Church?

Where did I say we should not confess our sins to the church? Who do you think “one another” refers to? I only discarded the notion that we should go to a priest specifically. Plus a ministerial priesthood isn’t even mentioned in the new testament. Who do you think Christians in the first century were confessing to?

@Traverse:

2 Timothy 3:16 is where Paul is referring to the OLD TESTAMENT. The NT wasn’t even close to being assembled. So are you telling me that only the OT is profitable? There is no way Paul could have been referring to the NT.

I actually discussed this point in the very post I brought up the verse. “all” scripture would naturally include all future scripture. Anything that is scripture. Therefore he was not only referring to what he was actually writing, but also anything coming up in the future.

Don’t forget. He’s not writing of his own volition, but inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is well aware of what will be said in the future.

 

[concretecamper]

You’ve got to be kidding. :banghead:

Timothy must have gone crazy looking out for all those future books that Paul was instructing him about.

 

[PJM]

=SteveVH;11400637]But on what do you base your statement that what Jesus instituted is different than what we see today in the Catholic Church? Do you have some source or is this just your opinion?

REPLY:
And where do you find that in the Bible? The Bible tells us that it is useful. It never says that it in itself is sufficient and includes everything necessary. Instead it directs you to the Church.

Hi Steve

If I may interjct a FACT for you from the Catholic catechism #1345

1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.END quote

And that dear fiend is Pretty MUCH HOW it remains even today:thumbsup:

Gd Bles you,
Patrick

 

[Traverse]

You’ve got to be kidding. :banghead:

Timothy must have gone crazy looking out for all those future books that Paul was instructing him about.

It’s alright. Your frustration is based on a difference in our beliefs. I believe that the particular gifts of the Holy Spirit (tongues, prophecy, etc) have ceased but they had them in the first century before the completion of the bible so that people wouldn’t have to go crazy slamming their heads into walls. Timothy already knew the gospel and he had the Holy Spirit guiding him. That is not to say the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide us in the modern age, but it isn’t as in your face as it was during the apostolic age.

 

[SteveVH]

An infant cannot experience circumcision of the heart.

Can an infant, through faith, enter into the covenant made to Abraham? Yet circumcision accomplishes just that, does it not? So it is with Baptism. It is an act of God’s free grace.

You’re basically dodging the point. You claim it equips us for every good work, then dismiss the very point. What other works are there if we are properly equipped by scripture alone?

I haven’t dodged anything. You would certainly agree, would you not, that no one can be equipped for anything if they misunderstand the Scriptures. My point is that the Scriptures cannot be properly understood absent the Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church. Why? Because the Scriptures were never meant to be a complete compendium of Christian belief. The Bible is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing for the specific purpose of use in the Church’s liturgies. To understand it properly requires the rest of the story.

The discussion of the new testament canon is another matter altogether. I would dispute that we only have the bible because of the catholic church. Christians living in the first two centuries would too because there hadn’t been any councils to discuss it yet, but they we know they had completed scripture. It was all written before the close of the first century. It was NOT sitting around waiting to be decided upon. The church had the complete word before anyone decided it needed to be decided upon.

Well, they had lots of writings. Are you familiar with the “Didache” or the “Shepherd of Hermas”? These were writings which contained many quotes from Jesus himself and some from the Apostles. These were used in the early liturgies. They were not, however, determined to be the inspired word of God. There were also very many heretical writings from the Gnostics and other heretical groups. Over 400 documents were considered at the various councils and only 27 of those were chosen to be included in the New Testament as inspired writings. So do not tell me that everyone somehow knew which were the inspired word of God and which were not. That was the purpose of the Councils. If there were no confusion they would not have had to decide. But they did and now you have your Bible which you consider to be the inspired word of God for no other reason than the Church told you it was.

To be fair, it is only catholic tradition that maintains they were bishops. The bible never states they were ordained as such. All we really know is that they were teachers.

A great example of what “Bible Only” Christians are missing. Do you doubt that the Apostles appointed bishops, deacons and presbyters (priests)? When one is sent to be the head of a large Church, such as Ephesus, and is instructed to appoint deacons and presbyters (priests) there, he must be a bishop. No one else has authority to do that.

Who do you think Christians in the first century were confessing to?

Priests and bishops.

I actually discussed this point in the very post I brought up the verse. “all” scripture would naturally include all future scripture. Anything that is scripture. Therefore he was not only referring to what he was actually writing, but also anything coming up in the future.

And any future Scripture would first have to be determined as Scripture, correct? Who do you suppose did that?

Don’t forget. He’s not writing of his own volition, but inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is well aware of what will be said in the future.

Yes the Holy Spirit is well aware of what will be said in the future and it was that Holy Spirit who informed the Church as to what was and what was not Sacred Scripture. At least you, as “Bible Only”, Christian had better hope that the Holy Spirit informed the Church. Otherwise you have no way of determining that it is or is not.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve

If I may interjct a FACT for you from the Catholic catechism #1345

1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.END quote

And that dear fiend is Pretty MUCH HOW it remains even today:thumbsup:

Gd Bles you,
Patrick

Yes, I am quite aware of Justin Martyr’s account of the Holy Mass. Thanks. It pretty much puts to rest any question of whether or not the ministerial priesthood was in place from the beginning.

 

[Traverse]

Can an infant, through faith, enter into the covenant made to Abraham? Yet circumcision accomplishes just that, does it not? So it is with Baptism. It is an act of God’s free grace.

I already said that baptism is equated with circumcision of the heart. That’s different.

I haven’t dodged anything. You would certainly agree, would you not, that no one can be equipped for anything if they misunderstand the Scriptures. My point is that the Scriptures cannot be properly understood absent the Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church. Why? Because the Scriptures were never meant to be a complete compendium of Christian belief. The Bible is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing for the specific purpose of use in the Church’s liturgies. To understand it properly requires the rest of the story.

I would simply disagree that they cannot be understood without a magisterium.

Well, they had lots of writings. Are you familiar with the “Didache” or the “Shepherd of Hermas”? These were writings which contained many quotes from Jesus himself and some from the Apostles. These were used in the early liturgies. They were not, however, determined to be the inspired word of God. There were also very many heretical writings from the Gnostics and other heretical groups. Over 400 documents were considered at the various councils and only 27 of those were chosen to be included in the New Testament as inspired writings. So do not tell me that everyone somehow knew which were the inspired word of God and which were not. That was the purpose of the Councils. If there were no confusion they would not have had to decide. But they did and now you have your Bible which you consider to be the inspired word of God for no other reason than the Church told you it was.

Irrelevant. The confusion of some is not the same as the confusion of all.

[1Cr 14:37 NASB] 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.

We know that those gifted with prophecy were able to recognize scripture when they saw it. Therefore, while some would be confused, they had others in the church to rely on for guidance. That’s why you don’t really see these disputes about what is and isn’t scripture until after the close of the apostolic age, when the bible was finished and these gifts would have ceased.

 

[Traverse]

A great example of what “Bible Only” Christians are missing. Do you doubt that the Apostles appointed bishops, deacons and presbyters (priests)? When one is sent to be the head of a large Church, such as Ephesus, and is instructed to appoint deacons and presbyters (priests) there, he must be a bishop. No one else has authority to do that.

I don’t doubt that roles for men in the church were appointed. I do not dispute that. I only dispute that one would need to be a bishop in order to appoint other bishops. Titus, for example, was in Crete, going to all the cities and appointing bishops in every city as he was instructed by Paul. But should not a bishop, if he was one, have his own church to look after? Yet he’s traveling around and making appointments. He is not acting as a bishop in any passage that I’m aware of, unless you only make the assumption that he had to be a bishop because he went around appointing them.

On the subject of priests, this stems from a disagreement between Catholics and other denominations about the use of the word presbyter. Many argue that presbyter and bishop were in fact used interchangeably. Clement certainly used them that way. If true, that would mean that priests were never appointed, just bishops/presbyters.

[1Pe 5:1 NASB] 1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,

Elder is translated from “presbyteros,” which, if I’m not mistaken, the catholic church tends to interpret as the modern day priesthood. Was Peter just a priest? Or was he a bishop?

Consider also Titus.

[Tts 1:5-7 NASB] 5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,

Here we see presbyteros and episkopos used interchangeably. They are not specified as two different offices.

And any future Scripture would first have to be determined as Scripture, correct? Who do you suppose did that?

The church, of course. The only difference is that I don’t believe there was a reason to wait a couple hundred years for the matter to be settled. Logic dictates the matter was settled well ahead of time.

Yes the Holy Spirit is well aware of what will be said in the future and it was that Holy Spirit who informed the Church as to what was and what was not Sacred Scripture. At least you, as “Bible Only”, Christian had better hope that the Holy Spirit informed the Church. Otherwise you have no way of determining that it is or is not.

That’s correct. Our disagreement is not about whether the Holy Spirit guided the church as the great comforter, but whether the RCC has the claim of being that church which was guided from the beginning. The RCC and Orthodox churches both claim to have given the world the bible, yet both have differing canons despite the fact that in the third century they hadn’t split from each other. This leads me to conclude that the canon wasn’t settled by a third century council as plainly as you think it was. The council of Hippo doesn’t even have surviving records as far as I know.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t doubt that roles for men in the church were appointed. I do not dispute that. I only dispute that one would need to be a bishop in order to appoint other bishops. Titus, for example, was in Crete, going to all the cities and appointing bishops in every city as he was instructed by Paul. But should not a bishop, if he was one, have his own church to look after? Yet he’s traveling around and making appointments. He is not acting as a bishop in any passage that I’m aware of, unless you only make the assumption that he had to be a bishop because he went around appointing them.

Do you understand that bishops and priests were ordained by the laying on of hands from one who already possessed this authority, beginning with the Apostles? How does one with no authority appoint another with authority? Authority in the Church is always handed down. That is how we can trace the authority of the Catholic Church clear back to Peter. Christianity is not a democracy, in spite of the way in which most Protestant pastors are chosen. That is why they have no authority. No one with authority gave them authority.

Titus, for example, was in Crete, going to all the cities and appointing bishops in every city as he was instructed by Paul. But should not a bishop, if he was one, have his own church to look after? Yet he’s traveling around and making appointments. He is not acting as a bishop in any passage that I’m aware of, unless you only make the assumption that he had to be a bishop because he went around appointing them.

We have an Archbishop of the Military. Which Church do you suppose he looks after? You are correct in that most cases, bishops are given a certain diocese to “look after”, but that is not a necessary requirement. The fact that he went around appointing other bishops is prima facie evidence that Titus was a bishop. The fact that you do not understand how this works does not change that fact.

On the subject of priests, this stems from a disagreement between Catholics and other denominations about the use of the word presbyter. Many argue that presbyter and bishop were in fact used interchangeably. Clement certainly used them that way. If true, that would mean that priests were never appointed, just bishops/presbyters.

Every bishop is also a priest.

From Catholic Answers:

*"The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.” The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.

They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear–except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)–the word may rightly be translated as “priest” instead of “elder” or “presbyter.”

Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally “an overseer”: We translate it as “bishop.” The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2).

The New Testament tendency to use episcopos and presbuteros interchangeably is similar to the contemporary Protestant use of the term “minister” to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the term diakonos is rendered both as “deacon” and as “minister” in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister.

In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are called presbyteroi (v. 17) and episcopoi (v. 28). Presbuteroi is used in a technical sense to identify their office of ordained leadership. Episcopoi is used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the verses: “And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for the elders [presbuteroi]of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them . . . ‘Take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi], to feed the church of the Lord.’”

In other passages it’s clear that although men called presbuteroi ruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those early episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul’s instructions: “This is why I left you in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Ti 1:5; cf. 1 Tm 5:17-22)."*

 

[SteveVH]

The church, of course. The only difference is that I don’t believe there was a reason to wait a couple hundred years for the matter to be settled. Logic dictates the matter was settled well ahead of time.

The Church was never dependent upon the “Bible” for its faith so it was never a matter of immediate importance, as if the Church could not do without it. It possessed the fullness of truth given to it by the Apostles before the books of the new Testament were even written, much less canonized. Nevertheless, your logic is in contradiction to history. The matter was not settled for nearly 400 years after the birth of the Church.

That’s correct. Our disagreement is not about whether the Holy Spirit guided the church as the great comforter, but whether the RCC has the claim of being that church which was guided from the beginning.

Then please, tell us which Church has a legitimate claim to being that original Church. Christ himself said that the gates of hell would never prevail against it so it must still be around. Please give me the name of that Church.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Traverse
That’s correct. Our disagreement is not about whether the Holy Spirit guided the church as the great comforter, but whether the RCC has the claim of being that church which was guided from the beginning

=SteveVH;
Then please, tell us which Church has a legitimate claim to being that original Church. Christ himself said that the gates of hell would never prevail against it so it must still be around. Please give me the name of that Church

.

If one does the following it is Indisputably [1] clear [2] precise [3] biblical [4] historically provable

PLEASE look up and read the following in the sequence provided; taking note that in each and every instance, it is Christ and the Apostles both DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY

Online Parallel Bible - Compare Bible Verse Translations

Use Parallel Bible online to Read and compare Bible verses using different versions and translations like KJV, NIV, ESV, ASV, The Message, Living, and more.

www.biblestudytools.com

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16: 15-19
Mt. 18:18
John 17:14-20
John 20: 19-23
Mk.16: 14-15
Mt. 28:16-20

Acts 20: 28-30 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, [singular] which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Douay Rheims Bible

John 10:16 “And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd”

Eph. 2: 20-23 “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building, [singular] being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. [singular] In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit.”

Eph. 4: 1-7 "There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith,[ONLY ONE TRUE SET OF FAITH BELIEFS] one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Eph. 2:19-20 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] **built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, ** in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple [SINGULAR] in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

[4] Historically todays Catholic church MUST be the One true church BECAUSE:

It is the ONLY Church Founded by Christ; guided by Christ and warranted by Christ; as the above look-up passages verify.

Further it was the ONLY CHURCH to exist for 1,000 YEARS before the Great Eastern Schism & EVEN LONGER before the advent of Protestantism begun:thumbsup:

The Bible and history make clear to anyone “who has ears” that this is FACT

God Bless you!

Patrick

Steve; sorry to butt in, your doing a great job.

 

[Traverse]

Do you understand that bishops and priests were ordained by the laying on of hands from one who already possessed this authority, beginning with the Apostles? How does one with no authority appoint another with authority? Authority in the Church is always handed down. That is how we can trace the authority of the Catholic Church clear back to Peter. Christianity is not a democracy, in spite of the way in which most Protestant pastors are chosen. That is why they have no authority. No one with authority gave them authority.

Fair point if that’s what the laying on of hands was for. However, laying on of hands wss used for many reasons to the point that it can’t be seen as specifically for passing on authority. It was also used to transfer spiritual gifts, but not necessarily to “ordained” individuals.

We have an Archbishop of the Military. Which Church do you suppose he looks after? You are correct in that most cases, bishops are given a certain diocese to “look after”, but that is not a necessary requirement. The fact that he went around appointing other bishops is prima facie evidence that Titus was a bishop. The fact that you do not understand how this works does not change that fact.

So what you’re saying is that Titus had to be a bishop because of your current beliefs on what it being necessary for a bishop to appoint other bishops. You do not believe this based on the biblical text. You believe in sacred tradition so that’s expected, but it’s not really fair to say I don’t understand it. The fact that you make an assumption on the ordination of Titus based on your catholic background does not change the fact that scripture has no real opinion on this.

Every bishop is also a priest.

OR a they’re the same thing. Specific priestly duties are not identified in scripture as anything unique to that of the bishop. In fact, scripture makes sure to comment on the qualifications of bishops and deacons and yet is completely silent on the qualifications for any other office. I am forced to conclude that there were only two formal offices rather than three (or four if you count arch bishops as being an entirely separate matter).

The Church was never dependent upon the “Bible” for its faith so it was never a matter of immediate importance, as if the Church could not do without it. It possessed the fullness of truth given to it by the Apostles before the books of the new Testament were even written, much less canonized. Nevertheless, your logic is in contradiction to history. The matter was not settled for nearly 400 years after the birth of the Church.

What history is it contradictory to? If the catholic church and orthodox church were one at the time, but have two separate doctrines, it only makes sense to conclude that a universal ruling on scripture was not established. The council you refer to has no records surviving to this day. How do you know what was discussed?

Then please, tell us which Church has a legitimate claim to being that original Church. Christ himself said that the gates of hell would never prevail against it so it must still be around. Please give me the name of that Church.

[Mat 7:15-21 NASB] 15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

A reliance on apostolic succession doesn’t really work since other churches claim the same means to insist they are THE church first established. If you can explain how catholics can prove it more than the orthodox, for example, can then I would be interested in reading such a statement.

PJM:
Skepticism in the claims of the catholic church doesn’t mean that the only other option is to assume there was more than one church established by God. Of course there was only one church. But history is divided on what church that IS. The orthodox certainly have very different opinions on the matter. Who is to be believed? History doesn’t define everything as neatly as you like to suggest.

 

[Protestor]

What is the what and the if of this question.

What do you think the implication is by saying grace through faith or faith through grace. Do you think these are different if they are? If so why?

Because your question is so weirdly made, at least to my eyes, I cannot answer craft a sufficient answer for you.

 

[JonNC]

What is the what and the if of this question.

What do you think the implication is by saying grace through faith or faith through grace. **Do you think these are different if they are? If so why? **

Because your question is so weirdly made, at least to my eyes, I cannot answer craft a sufficient answer for you.

I won’t speak for the OP, but the difference is grace exists without faith. Faith does not exist without grace.

Jon

 

[Protestor]

I always see faith as being the indirect object or the main gift of grace. Would God’s other gifts matter if faith was not one of them. In respect to the rest of eternity being spent in hell; the gift of tongues during a finite period seems insignificant. What I am trying to ask in respect to your comment is If grace exists without faith would not grace be essentially meaningless at least from a human perspective. I can see how God could see meaning in something insignificant. On a different level or in a different way of explaining what I am asking I do not see anything contradictory in a strict implication of faith and grace. Maybe I do I don’t know convince me what you think is right

 

[JonNC]

I was speaking from a “source” POV, and making no other claim about a hypothetical of faith not existing. The source of faith is grace. Without grace, there is no faith. There are many people who do not have faith. That fact doesn’t exclude the existence of grace.

Jon

 

[pablope]

I always see faith as being the indirect object or the main gift of grace. Would God’s other gifts matter if faith was not one of them. In respect to the rest of eternity being spent in hell; the gift of tongues during a finite period seems insignificant. What I am trying to ask in respect to your comment is If grace exists without faith would not grace be essentially meaningless at least from a human perspective. I can see how God could see meaning in something insignificant. On a different level or in a different way of explaining what I am asking I do not see anything contradictory in a strict implication of faith and grace. Maybe I do I don’t know convince me what you think is right

Maybe this article may help further explain:

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf

Justification By Faith
By Dr. William Marshner

Grace
What Catholics call “sanctifying grace” or “habitual grace” turns out to be a deeply mysterious entity: a quality of man which is a property of God. In order to cope with such an entity, one needs a sophisticated metaphysics of participation. The Church Fathers and their successors, the Scholastic Doctors, took the trouble to work out such a metaphysics because the existence of grace as a real entity in man—ontic grace—was and is the foundation, without which the whole Catholic understanding of justification makes no sense. The Protestant Reformers, however, impatient with metaphysics, preferred not to cope with such an entity and denied its existence.4 To them it seemed simpler to say that grace is something wholly in God, namely, His favor towards us. But then, if grace is not something real in man, our “justification” can no longer be conceived as a real change in us; it will have to become a sheer declaration on God’s part, e.g. a declaration that, thanks to the work of Christ, He will henceforth consider us as just, even though we remain inwardly the sinners we always were. Hence, the Protestant doctrine of “forensic” or “extrinsic” justification. Now watch what happens to our own act of faith: it ceases to be the foundational act of an interior renewal and becomes a mere requirement, devoid of any salvific power in its own right, which God arbitrarily sets as the condition on which He will He will declare us just. Whereupon, watch what happens to our good works: they cease to be the vital acts wherein an ontologically real “new life” consists and manifests itself; they become mere human responses to divine mercy—nice, but totally irrelevant to our justification—or else they become zombie-like motions produced in us by irresistible divine impulses, whereby God exhibits His glory in His elect.

 

[jmcrae]

Baha’u’llah, the promised one of all religions and non-religions, declares that if the Grace of God were to be withheld for less than the briefest of moments, then the Justice of God would obliterate all of creation to nothingness and non-existence.

Catholics also believe something similar, in that if God were to stop loving you for even a nano-second, you would cease ever to have existed.