Foundation

[imroc]

Paul did baptize households but we do not know
if they had kids in them. Bible does not forbid it but specific examples are of adults.

I hardly doubt that “whole” households contained just teenagers and adults back then. Especially since Trojan and Planned Parenthood haven’t taken hold of those societies yet.

And I hardly believe that the mentioning of ONLY adults was meant as an apologetic work for protestants that would come well over a dozen centuries later.

 

[imroc]

Fredricks:

…My day is done. Basketball beckons…

Yeah, I should get out and get into shape. Spring is coming and hiking to the high mountain lakes, while out of shape could be deadly. Sitting here typing doesn’t help . Have fun and sweat a few drops for me too!

 

[Eden]

After reading his responses to the quotes from the Council of Carthage, I’m guessing that Fredericks comes from a faith that was founded by one of three men: King Henry VIII, John Wesley or Martin Luther.

 

[Nicene]

Fredricks:

My day is done. Basketball beckons.

Have fun, good luck, score big.

My paragraph was condensed like I said. I think it is absolutely
historically and biblically definsible that the highest authority rested in the local church under the leadership of the Apostles.
If I was unclear, I apologize.

The local church does have a local authority, no catholic would deny that. Our churches all do that, under the bishop when required, under the Holy See when most necesary.

I would never deny apostolic authority. I have it in my possession right now. The words of the Apostles. The Holy Bible.

But all those local and regional bishops, through the laying on of hands, are the ones who decided what is and is not in scripture. By default you accept their decision, yet not their authority to interpret or set doctrine. It is a misnomer to believe their weren’t other writings that each church had. There were other writings that were not chosen as uninspired yet held in high regard. They set canon.

Your response was very high quality. No matter what anyone else says, the quality of your post demands that this be the one I answer when tomorrow I hope. Church can take a long time but I will return to this one.
Thank you.

It’s your time with God as a congregation. Sometimes I think it is not long enough, take your time.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

P.s. I edited my first post to clarify some things just FYI.

 

[Nicene]

Sacrement in an extrabiblical term. But Protestants observe what is in the Bible

Sacrament means something sacred, a mystery. Is communion sacred? Is baptism sacred? Is recieving the Holy Spirit sacred? The imposition of hands, is it sacred? Is marriage sacred? Are they mysteries?

Yet the word Bible is also an extrabiblical term, it’s never said in Scripture, neither is the word Trinity, yet you accept those.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Just some other thoughts real quick about “extrabiblical”. The gospels themselves are called the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Yet the writers never identify themselves. Those titles are not in scripture. Manuscripts before and during the first century were identified by their first line or sentence.

Yet you accept these as being written by those authors, as you have stated Scripture is from the apostles. Prove it biblically in the case of the gospels. How do you know that they wrote them?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Eden]

While you’re at it, Fredericks, can you tell me why you accept extrabiblical punctuation, capitalization and numbering?

 

[Nicene]

I guess the biggest qwuestion is, which came first, Scripture or the Church? If the scripture was to rule the church, not the church rule over scripture. How could the church have started in the first place, without a testament to guide them?

The council of Jerusalem becomes very poingnent at this point. Is the church to be organic and growing or stagnant?

Did Christ give the apostles a bible to rule them on faith and morals, or did he give them a church to rule over? Does the Holy Spirit guide the church, or the Scripture?

By saying that scripture rules over the church, yet you interpret it, you in effect rule over scripture. By what authority has this been claimed? You don’t believe the church has the right to rule over scripture, but give yourself the same perogative. Why?

Every time you interpret scripture, you rule over it. There is no way around that.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Fredricks:

This could get very long. Why dont you show me the Magisterium and the Pope in the Bible? Peter was not even a bishop when Matthew 16:18 occured. Where in scripture do we find that Peter(although I disagree, for the sake of argument) is able to hand of “the keys” to a specific person?
I imagine you are familiar with every verse I would use but I say that not minding at all if you would like me to include them.

Thank you as well.

First and foremost the apostles were bishops, which means overseers or managers of the Church. We see this in Acts 1:20 in reference to Judas "For it is written in the book of Psalms, (109:8) let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take”. Bishopric being the office of bishop or overseer. Christ giving the Keys to Peter in Matthew 16:18 is giving particular authority to Peter as leader of the Church on earth.

Just as Judas position fell vacant on his death a successor Mathias replaced him, on taking office he assumed the authority that Judas had. Just the same with Peter office when he died another succeeded, Linus, to his office who then assumed the authority inherent in that office.
The Magisterium is the teaching authority within the Church, that is the Bishops of the Church united with the Pope are the teaching authority within it. In Acts, Bishops are mentioned as being shepherds of the flock, other passages from the Gospels describe them as stewards or administrators and teachers. In John 21:15-17 Christ commissions Peter to feed/guide rule over His people on earth

Pax

Brian

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

My day is done. Basketball beckons.
My paragraph was condensed like I said. I think it is absolutely
historically and biblically definsible that the highest authority rested in the local church under the leadership of the Apostles.
If I was unclear, I apologize.
I would never deny apostolic authority. I have it in my possession right now. The words of the Apostles. The Holy Bible.
Your response was very high quality. No matter what anyone else says, the quality of your post demands that this be the one I answer when tomorrow I hope. Church can take a long time but I will return to this one.
Thank you.

It would be awful sweet of you to respond to some of the other quite pointed questions, too. Nicene has done a great job here, I agree, but perhaps you could tie up some of your loose ends. . .

Your Bible looks like the one set at Carthage?

Fred:
Quote:
" For Christians such as I, and I suspect others on this forum, it is not that we outright reject all extrabiblical traditions.’

Good news! Specifically which extrabiblical traditions do you accept?

Quote:
“We believe that history matters.”

Which “history”? You’ve cited a couple of versions when they are helpful to your argument. We need some perspective here, if only to narrow the admissible evidentiary versions of history that would be profitable to this dialogue. In lay terms: could you give us your “primary sources” for history and the reasons why you believe them to be reliable?

Quote:
“Remember, we do not reject tradition persay.”

Right. Which traditions, persay? Other than Sola Scriptura, of course.

Again, the point must be addressed. Why do you accept the Church’s authoritative qualification of Scripture as “sacred,” yet reject her authority to qualify Tradition as “sacred”?

Quote:
“My first point was
Scripture is from the primary sources.”

Right. We were still waiting for your “named” primary source for the letter to the Hebrews.

AND. . .

“We are addressing those things that Catholics do that are not found directly in the Bible. Which from our perspective, and many ex-Catholics appears to be most of it.”

I’ll make this last one simple: Where exactly have you “found directly in the Bible” your doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

I know you are saving your big guns, but since this is really the most pressing question, it’d be just swell if you’d answer it!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

montanaman:

Fred’s only debating for the sake of debating? Nice. Any admiring audience of Fred’s is probably sharp as a box of rocks. If they have the equivalent of his understanding of the Catholic Church and scripture, there isn’t much we can do. You can’t put information in someone’s head, after all.

Montana You have just reinforced my feeling toward the greater body of RC’s, because I have yet to study in great detail the history of the “church” you decide to label me as a box of rocks, as I believe Fred mentioned in another post I have yet had the desire to try to unscramble the mental gymnastics that is Catholic doctrine, does this make me a box of rocks? I think not. I read and do understand the Bible in the way** God wants me to understand** the Bible, If you choose to blindly call me obtuse, I think that is being quite judgemental. I personally am enjoying reading and learning both Fred Jane and awful. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut none the less.

 

[awfulthings9]

Myfavoritemartin,

If it is handy for you in learning why Catholics believe what they do (and I think it is very admirable that you are making the effort to understand your son’s faith), drop me an e-mail at spencerallen@midamerica.net and I will send you an attachment that contains Scripture verses to support about any Catholic teaching you can name. It might be helpful in your studies. Anyone else who wants it (20 pages, small print), it’s a pretty comprehensive list, so drop me a line. I’ve been too tied up to contribute lately, but am always willing to help in any way I can. Again, I appreciate your sincere study. Glad to have you on board the forums.

-Spencer

 

[montanaman]

myfavoritmartin:

Montana You have just reinforced my feeling toward the greater body of RC’s, because I have yet to study in great detail the history of the “church” you decide to label me as a box of rocks, as I believe Fred mentioned in another post I have yet had the desire to try to unscramble the mental gymnastics that is Catholic doctrine, does this make me a box of rocks? I think not. I read and do understand the Bible in the way** God wants me to understand** the Bible, If you choose to blindly call me obtuse, I think that is being quite judgemental. I personally am enjoying reading and learning both Fred Jane and awful. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut none the less.

No, you don’t understand. You start with a false, anti-Biblical assumption, (sola scriptura), pepper it with another falsehood (that there is no earthly authority over you and your Bible interpretation) and then expect to be able to understand? Please. You bet I’m being judgmental. For all I know, you’re a sincere person. But if you think a religious rogue like Fred is some kind of wise man, you’re gravely mistaken.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

montanaman:

No, you don’t understand. You start with a false, anti-Biblical assumption, (sola scriptura), pepper it with another falsehood (that there is no earthly authority over you and your Bible interpretation) and then expect to be able to understand? Please. You bet I’m being judgmental. For all I know, you’re a sincere person. But if you think a religious rogue like Fred is some kind of wise man, you’re gravely mistaken.

I very simply choose the infallibility of the scriptures and you are right there is no one on this earth that I would trust my salvation in, to let them interpret the scriptures for me. So if you call this a grave mistake it is one I’m willing to rest my soul on. According to the Council of Trent that makes me anethema (earthly being brave enough to judge me) I will let God be the judge. So tell me is my obtusive (box of rocks) thinking sending me directly to the gates of hell?

 

[montanaman]

myfavoritmartin:

I very simply choose the infallibility of the scriptures and you are right there is no one on this earth that I would trust my salvation in, to let them interpret the scriptures for me. So if you call this a grave mistake it is one I’m willing to rest my soul on. According to the Council of Trent that makes me anethema (earthly being brave enough to judge me) I will let God be the judge. So tell me is my obtusive (box of rocks) thinking sending me directly to the gates of hell?

Beats me. But one thing you have in your favor is that real, true ignorance may limit your culpability. On the other hand, if you willfully contribute to your ignorance, (i.e. by never reading/thinking about/considering the Catholic case even when you KNOW it blows apart your argument on issue X) then you might be in trouble.

Simply put, you MAY still be saved if through no fault of your own, you never come to know Christ and his Church.

 

[awfulthings9]

myfavoritmartin:

I very simply choose the infallibility of the scriptures and you are right there is no one on this earth that I would trust my salvation in, to let them interpret the scriptures for me. So if you call this a grave mistake it is one I’m willing to rest my soul on. According to the Council of Trent that makes me anethema (earthly being brave enough to judge me) I will let God be the judge. So tell me is my obtusive (box of rocks) thinking sending me directly to the gates of hell?

Just a clarification - the anathema refered to in the Council of Trent documents is aimed at those who break away from the true faith and, in doing so, led others away. In particular, it is aimed at the reformers, themselves. The Church does not teach that someone born of another faith or swayed there by invincible ignorance (meaning one who doesn’t know Catholicism through no fault of his own) is anathema. The documents of Trent are not aimed at you as long as, if you discover the truth as Christ delivered it, you follow that or if, through no fault of your own, you do not discover that truth. I’m stating this with the presumption that Catholicism is the truth, as I believe it is, and not to seem arrogant. After all, either all faiths are false or one contains the fullness of the truth - only those two possibilities can logically exist. Anyway, just clearing up that the anathema is not a blanket condemnation on all non-Catholic Christians.

 

[JaneFrances]

awfulthings9:

Just a clarification - the anathema refered to in the Council of Trent documents is aimed at those who break away from the true faith and, in doing so, led others away. In particular, it is aimed at the reformers, themselves. The Church does not teach that someone born of another faith or swayed there by invincible ignorance (meaning one who doesn’t know Catholicism through no fault of his own) is anathema. The documents of Trent are not aimed at you as long as, if you discover the truth as Christ delivered it, you follow that or if, through no fault of your own, you do not discover that truth. I’m stating this with the presumption that Catholicism is the truth, as I believe it is, and not to seem arrogant. After all, either all faiths are false or one contains the fullness of the truth - only those two possibilities can logically exist. Anyway, just clearing up that the anathema is not a blanket condemnation on all non-Catholic Christians.

According to the Council of Trent that makes me anethema (earthly being brave enough to judge me) I will let God be the judge. So tell me is my obtusive (box of rocks) thinking sending me directly to the gates of hell?

It is essential to note, in light of this particular discussion point, that the term “anathema,” like many common terms, has a specific development of usage which can not be ignored.

A common perception is that that “anathema” means “damned”–ie, “sending me directly to the gates of hell.” This is not formal usage, however.

Anathema is a censure on the faithful. It is a censure that places a transgressor outside of a particular society–in this case, the Catholic Church. If one is not already a member of that society, then the censure of anathema would not necessarily apply. And unlike the eternally “damned,” it is entirely possible for the “anathematized” to seek reconciliation whereby absolving him or her from the censure.

A further and more complete explanation of anathema can be found here:

newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

Hope this helps!

 

[Fredricks]

montanaman:

But if you think a religious rogue like Fred is some kind of wise man, you’re gravely mistaken.

ROGUE An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

montanaman:

(that there is no earthly authority over you and your Bible interpretation) .

You know Montana I follow the biblical instructions given to the Berea
in Acts 17:11 and listen to what is being preached to me and then study it in the infallible scriptures to see that it is true. Based on this Biblical instruction why would I need to have an earthly authority over me for Biblical interpretation.

 

[Fredricks]

Sorry for the delay on my last post. My laptop at home ceased to work, the screen went out, you can see it but barely. Excuses excuses I know
I have it in my head though. This week. Although I am getting questions on “church authority” and I am working on that as well.