How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[Neithan]

Right. And so do Lutherans. How do they know this is a valid baptism? But that’s @JonNC’s question. How do we know who is in the church and who is not?

 

[JonNC]

When this was said there was one church with one set of doctorines and those who taught something different were known as heretics and were condemned.

So, the rules change?

Really all we have to do is look around today at “churches” that completely pervert God’s word…there are churches that teach that abortion is ok, and gay marriage is GOOD and HEALTHY…people preaching, believing and practicing this type of thing based on their churches beliefs are baptized…but no they should clearly not be receiving the Eucharist according to the early church or Catholicism.

And yet Catholic politicians and laity who favor abortion avail themselves of the Eucharist all the time. In the ways you mentioned, and probably many others, I’m more in line with Catholic teaching than they are.

 

[JonNC]

I know this because of the Catholic teaching: valid form, the words, “In the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”; and matter — water — with right intention, to effect the sacrament.

How do you know what makes a valid baptism?

So who is in the church and who is not, and how do we know?

And your understanding comes from the same sources as ours: the early Church and scripture.

 

[Neithan]

Right, uh, so you’ve answered your question.

So are Quakers and the Salvation Army or Mormons in the church, and how do we know who is or isn’t?

 

[JonNC]

Right, uh, so you’ve answered your question.

So are Quakers and the Salvation Army or Mormons in the church, and how do we know who is or isn’t?

That’s not for me to say. I quoted the Didache. Are Mormons, Quakers, or SA members baptized in the way Christ commands in the Great Commission?

 

[Neithan]

Quakers and the Salvation Army, no; Mormons yes.

I’m curious if a Lutheran, or Anglican, or other protestant would claim to be in the church but exclude other Christians and what the basis of that judgment is.

 

[JonNC]

Quakers and the Salvation Army, no; Mormons yes.

I’m curious if a Lutheran, or Anglican, or other protestant would claim to be in the church but exclude other Christians and what the basis of that judgment is.

I claim to be in the one True Church founded by Christ at Pentecost. I do not see it my place to determine who is not.

The early Church and scripture use Baptism.

 

[GKMotley]

Anglicans would (some of them) refer to the term “apostolic”.

 

[hope]

Onto John 20 verse 22 - The verb labete is translated as receive you or ye in the proper English. Labete is the second aorist tense, active voice, and imperative mood of the verb lambano. That verbs meaning is to take, have, receive, or catch. The key is the second aorist tense.
Christ wasn’t telling the apostles they would receive the Holy Spirit right then. The emphasis is on what is going to happen without specifying when. We know the apostles received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost right? Pentecost clearly came after this meeting between Jesus and the apostles.

I am not an expert on Greek but I have found that the aorist tense is unspecified time. It can mean past, future and present. As such, it is a leap for you to say it is future. When did Elizabeth receive the Spirit? She wasn’t at Pentecost. The same word for Holy Spirit is used here as well as Pentecost. There is no future tense. Aorist is used mostly for past tense but not always. The translation by experts use receive not you will or you shall receive.

Onto verse 23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained

Aphete is translated as ye remit. This is the active voice using the second aorist tense, and is the subjunctive mood of the verb aphiemi which means to forgive, forsake, or leave.
Kratete is translated as you retain. The present tense, active voice and subjunctive mood of the verb krateo, which means lay hold on, take, to hold. The key again is the subjunctive mood on both these verbs.

But both of them are not subjunctive Aphete is but Kratete is indicative. If this is the key, you don’t have the right lock.

 

[hope]

In verse 22 Jesus focused on what would happen. They would receive the power of the Holy Spirit. They would be able to tell who was truly repentant vs those who weren’t. This ability to discern who was truly forgiven would give them the ability to offer the gift of baptism as a reward for those who were truly repentant. They could also announce or tell those people who were claiming repentance that they really weren’t because they had the power to see such things because of the Holy Spirit. The second aorist tense in verse 23 (you remit) also shows Jesus was focusing on what would happen to them concerning the Holy Spirit without specifying when.

In verse 22 it is clear on every translation that it was happing then not in the future. There is nothing in the verses that say they could read the hearts of men. The tense does not mean what you want it to mean. It does not mean future.
Let’s revisit what you wrote

The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles were authorized only to announce the terms of forgiveness on the basis of God’s previous appointment. There is a famous Greek scholar J. R. Mantey who pointed out the Greek “Fathers” never quoted this passage in support of the concept of absolution.
The tenses do not show any announcement. Misstatement maybe? The Greek tenses do not support your interpretation.

 

[ReadTheBible]

You don’t have to understand Greek to know when the Holy Spirit came into the apostles though. Do you agree the Holy Spirit entered into the apostles on the day of Pentecost?

 

[hope]

John Chapter 20

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.

It is not unimportant that Jesus breathes on them. This action confirms that it is being done in the present time not a future time. IMHO they only received the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive at this time. Later at Pentecost they received the fullness of the Holy Spirit and all the gifts and fruits that came with Him.

 

[ReadTheBible]

So you believe the apostles got a little bit of the Holy Spirit when speaking with Jesus and then later at Pentecost received all of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think I’ve ever studied to see if this is the official position of Rome. Do you know if that is the case???

 

[hope]

A little bit of the Holy Spirit is inaccurate. They didn’t get the fullness.It was limited. Just like Elizabeth and Zacharias. did not get the fullness. IT states they were full of the Holy Spirit but I don’t believe that they had the fullness of the Holy Spirit. I did tell you that it was my opinion did you miss that?

 

[hope]

You might want to try this old thread Here

 

[chrisjb]

If you do 1000 good works a day in the eyes of God but have not the belief in Jesus the works are for nought.This to me is one of the revelations about God and scripture that tell us we can not merit our way to Heaven nor can our works aid in our sins being forgiven. … We are to take that gift and do something with it which is God’s will. Good works should be a consequence of receiving grace from God.

This is the Catholic belief as well. Works come from faith, but both a required. Faith alone is insufficient.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Yes, the rules did have to change for receiving the catholic Eucharist when people decided not to be catholic, or even something called Christian that officially teaches that various sins are good.

Of course various individual catholic people make the personal decision to go against church teaching and take the Eucharist unworthily. That has nothing to do with anything though, because the Catholic Church isn’t teaching them that those things are ok. These churches I am talking about teach that those sins are fine and their members can practice these things and happily take their communion. It is, in my opinion, what separates these groups from Catholicism. They aren’t being protected from teaching error.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, the rules did have to change for receiving the catholic Eucharist

There is only one Eucharist, instituted by Christ. My access to it is still a result of my baptism and membership in the One True Church. That we can’t share the same administration is the result of human sin.

 

[hope]

Catholicism claims its own history but unbiased historians have written the truths

Please list them.

 

[hope]

Pleeeeeas show me how I have misrepresented anything.

Roman Catechism

IT is not Roman but Catholic

Does the Pope believe he is the Vicar of Christ and God here on earth? So everyone who doesn’t worship the Pope as their leader and do what he says can’t be saved?

The Pope is not God here on earth.

Catholicism claims to have always maintained their same teachings but it’s simply not factually accurate

You equate practices with teaching they are not the same.

Prayers to the dead and making the sign of the cross were instituted in 330AD

False The earliest reference in the Bible is found in the second book of Maccabees.

.

The Roman Catholic Church likes to decree they are the succession of Peter but it simply doesn’t hold true. You certainly have the Church coming at Pentecost but not the Roman Catholic Church.

You have Churches at Ephesus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Antioch. Was the Roman Catholic Church in these places? The answer is no it never was

My Church is not Roman Catholic. It is the Catholic Church as such yes it was the same Church in each place they were not all different Church’s The true answer is yes it was.
What surprises me in reviewing some of your post is that you have not been flagged. I have seen flags for less.
Steve-b asked

Please give your source for this history