Infallibility of Church?

[MJD202]

Preach that there was more than 1 way to have a relationship with God. The only way to have a relationship with God is through Jesus. There is NO other intercession.

 

[MJD202]

That was an iPhone error

 

[MJD202]

What was the authoritative church that Paul was apart of?

 

[mcq72]

Don’t know it doesn’t say. It says they were cut to the heart, not the brain.

Welcome back…lol.I did miss you.

Well, faith cometh by hearing, and they heard the Word from Peter. I would say that hearing involves the brain, and apparently it went also to the heart…so the head knowledge was effectual to a heart change, where God wants to put “understanding”, as Elihu told Job and his 3 friends, " For God puts understanding in the heart of man".

I think the question to ask here is were they born again at this moment or were they “not there yet”?
I would argue they had a desire to be born again in Baptism and once they were born again this gave them the grace they needed to (v42) devote themselves to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, Eucharist and prayers. So after being born again is when they would come to understand.

Well like today i think they baptized only those who believed, who repented and believed on the Lord Jesus as Messiah. Not sure you can believe unregenerated.

I would say once they were baptized in the Holy Ghost , receiving that gift, they then had the power to be bold disciples, just as the apostles were changed with His power (the apostles were born again before Pentecost). But this is different than first believing, being regenerated in your spirit.

Agreed. But it seems to me you are saying this understanding must occur before one is born again where I am saying it can occur after.

I am not saying it comes before. I am saying it can only come to a regenerated spirit. God does not put His understanding, His "pearls’’ into the old man, to the flesh, but to the new man whose spirit has been revived (born again), that was once dead in trespasses and sins. It is only then that a man by the gift of the Holy Ghost says Jesus is Lord, and is then gladly baptized and confesses such a faith.

 

[Wannano]

Unfortunately, you may be right, and our gospels may have the same parts but in different order (regeneration before baptism etc.), thereby making them different.

However, I would qualify such a statement. Indeed some are regenerated by your gospel, and what I am more familiar with, that indeed some, or many, are regenerated by this other gospel. This should dull, and nullify for some, any anathemas given each other.

Reminds me a little bit of the apostles complaining to Jesus about these other disciples, that didn’t hang out with the apostles. Not a great analogy but…

I don’t think you were appropriately anathemaized. You are not preaching a different gospel but rather a different understanding. It was unfortunately worded.

 

[mcq72]

I don’t think you were appropriately anathemaized. You are not preaching a different gospel but rather a different understanding. It was unfortunately worded.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and empathy.

But you know I don’t mind hard stands. I don’t mind the seriousness of the matter, or making it so. Don’t even mind being pushed to self examine and working out salvation in fear and trembling. It definitely makes one lean on the Lord more, and less on one’s own understanding. Beautiful place to be, sometimes. Of course sometimes the Lord says you better to learn how to stand, especially if you are going to dabble outside one’s given “understanding”. So I appreciate strong people in their faith, especially when kindred to mine…thanks again

 

[mcq72]

I totally agree with what you say here. I believe it so much so that the parents can even cry out to the Lord that He will allow their baby to be born again in Baptism and they will not be refused.

well perhaps. I mean John the baptist certainly seemed spiritually alive without any baptism. Yet Jesus was baptized, symbolizing many things (identify with sinners He came to save, with His own death and resurrection, example of obedience), though not having any sins . I am wondering if some people enter baptism like Jesus, in the sense that they are cleansed already, by His Word of it, yet enter the waters also out of obedience and identification with the Lord’s and our death and resurrection.

This is the central point of our entire discussion. You’re claim that a person’s understanding and evidence is the basis of whether they are or aren’t there yet.

again perhaps a misunderstanding. This all began when we discussed people being baptized as infants, or really any time, and later in their walk, or lack of it, come to face the reality of their spirituality, or lack of it. it is their own self examining, with the Holy Spirit that I referred to . That like James says, their should be works if you have faith, if you have a spiritual life (new birth). What if they come to realize they have no works, have little understanding or little or no zeal for the spiritual things. I then suggested it s only fair that they have two choices (and that Catholics only have one). One they were never born again, and the hope then lies in crying out to God for this faith, this new birth and the gift of the holy spirit. The other , is that they are born again, but just backsliding and need an encounter with Christ again to reinvigorate the "romance’.

Again, this is in the domain of the ministry of the Holy Spirit , to convict the individual of where they stand. The Spirit always bares witness that indeed one is a child of God, but He will not if they are not. Then he will graciously and quietly suggests to become one, in new birth. And if they are backslidden, lost that first spark, to rekindle it in Divine fellowship.

 

[adf417]

Trusting in the authority of the church, any church does not necessarily enhance or strengthen your personal relationship with God.

It does when one believes the church is the body of Christ. But if ones tries to separate the two, which is impossible, then maybe you would be correct.

Peace!!!

 

[MJD202]

Where does it say the Roman Catholic Church is the body of Christ? Christ’s Church are his people not an organization created by man.

 

[adf417]

Where does it say the Roman Catholic Church is the body of Christ? Christ’s Church are his people not an organization created by man.

Where did i say “Catholic”?

You say “Trusting in the authority of the church, any church does not necessarily enhance or strengthen your personal relationship with God.”

Do you really think you can seperate Christ and his body?

Peace!!!

 

[MT1926]

Preach that there was more than 1 way to have a relationship with God. The only way to have a relationship with God is through Jesus. There is NO other intercession.

I agree that we need a relationship with Jesus. But to claim there is NO other intercession is contrary to the Bible. Think about it. Did Christ hand us the Bible before He left or did He use other mediators/intercessors to give it to us, tell us what it means and keep it safe?

This article might help.

What was the authoritative church that Paul was apart of?

I’m not sure exactly what you mean here? Are you trying to say that Paul was a lone wolf?

Paul was an authoritative member of the Apostolic Church. Scripture shows us that he himself was given authority over the Churches he preached to. It shows us that he handed on his authority to Timothy and Titus and told them to hand it on to faithful men. It also shows us that the other Apostles had authority, when Paul couldn’t handle the Judaizer’s and had to go before the Church council.

I could keep going but need to know what direction you are going with this question first.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

" For God puts understanding in the heart of man".

Sure totally agree. But once again it does not say when this understanding occurs. You are claiming the understanding must come before one is “born again” or they are not there yet. There is nothing in any of these texts that lead us away from believing that one can be “born again” first in Baptism and then God would use the Holy Spirit to “put understanding in the heart of man”.

Not sure you can believe unregenerated.

I kind of sort of agree with this. We also believe you cannot believe on your own, without God’s grace. We wouldn’t go so far as to say one needs to be regenerated (born again) prior to belief though. We would say one needs “Actual grace” first.

Actual grace is a supernatural push or encouragement. It’s transient. It doesn’t live in the soul, but acts on the soul from the outside, so to speak. It’s a supernatural kick in the pants. It gets the will and intellect moving so we can seek out and keep sanctifying grace.

Here’s a pretty good article on grace.

I am not saying it comes before. I am saying it can only come to a regenerated spirit

OK maybe I’m misunderstanding you then. Is a regenerated spirit not the same as one who is born again? If the regenerated spirit comes first then I think I would equate that to the actual grace I brought up earlier. So we might be closer in agreement than we think.

God does not put His understanding, His "pearls’’ into the old man, to the flesh, but to the new man whose spirit has been revived (born again), that was once dead in trespasses and sins. It is only then that a man by the gift of the Holy Ghost says Jesus is Lord, and is then gladly baptized and confesses such a faith.

Sorry I can’t agreeing with this. No on Biblical grounds but because of common sense.

If being born again is as strict as you say then there is no way anyone could ever claim to be born again. If God won’t put His pearls (grace) in a man, to the flesh, then we would have no way of ever knowing. How can anyone claim that they might not turn to the flesh again 40 years from now. God knows what we will do in the future so if He won’t put pearls into the fleshly man. Then it is common sense that He wouldn’t do it to begin with in someone whom He knows will one day return to the flesh. Which is something we don’t know if we will return to.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Yet Jesus was baptized, symbolizing many things …

Agree but I would add that He did it to show us what we need to do to receive the Holy Spirit. When Jesus was Baptized the heavens were open and the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove. As you say Jesus didn’t need to be Baptized. He also didn’t need to have the Holy Spirit descend on Him from heaven, He already had the Holy Spirit. It seems pretty clear to me, if Jesus didn’t need Baptism nor the descent of the Holy Spirit, which occurred when He was Baptized, that He was doing this for our benefit to first show us what actually happens in Baptism before He taught us what we must do to be Born Again.

This all began when we discussed people being baptized as infants, or really any time… it is their own self examining, with the Holy Spirit that I referred to .

I just want to point out that we don’t put infants and adults on the same level. Sure we agree that adults need to have understanding and self examination. That is why we have RCIA classes.

The point I am making is although this is very important, being “born again” is not contingent upon our self examination and understanding. Which is why we Baptize infants.

Because in the end we are fallible humans and we could be wrong. We could self exam and believe that we are no longer in the flesh, but 40 years from now it becomes evident that we still are and always were. And Like you stated…

God does not put His understanding, His "pearls’’ into the old man, to the flesh, but to the new man whose spirit has been revived (born again), that was once dead in trespasses and sins.

We can only conclude, from your theology, that God will only give understanding to those who did a correct self examination and He will pass over those who did it wrong. Which the answer to this is something we can’t know until judgement day.

What if they come to realize they have now works, have little understanding or little or no zeal for the spiritual things. I then suggested… they were never born again…

Yes exactly this is what I am getting at. You claim to be “born again”. What if 40 years from now you realize you no longer have works or zeal or understanding. Is that proof that at this very moment you aren’t really born again, but you just think you are?

…they are born again, but just backsliding and need an encounter with Christ…

I’m good with this. I think this perfectly encompasses what sin does to us. Sin is backsliding, just because we are born again doesn’t keep us from backsliding. The key, as you point out, is to keep reinvigorating the romance. That’s what I did on my retreat this past weekend.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Paul was an authoritative member of the Apostolic Church. Scripture shows us that he himself was given authority over the Churches he preached to. It shows us that he handed on his authority to Timothy and Titus and told them to hand it on to faithful men. It also shows us that the other Apostles had authority, when Paul couldn’t handle the Judaizer’s and had to go before the Church council.

Sounds like the beginnings of a patriarchal governance, as proposed by Orthodox and others.

 

[MT1926]

Sounds like the beginnings of a patriarchal governance, as proposed by Orthodox and others.

I was responding to the question that asked. What was the authoritative church that Paul was apart of? As I stated I wasn’t sure what he meant. It seemed to come across as saying there was no authoritative Church even at the time of the Apostles. Thus the reason I gave the response you mention above.

Everything I pointed out was straight from the Bible. Which part of what I said don’t you agree with?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

You are claiming the understanding must come before one is “born again” or they are not there yet.

No, I am claiming understanding comes with and after new birth.

The understanding that God gives before new birth is the understanding that you need it. Specifically, the conviction that one is a sinner, that there will be a judgement and that the righteous Jesus saves ( ministry of Holy Spirit from without.)

 

[mcq72]

No, no , you put it very well. I liked it.

 

[MT1926]

No, I am claiming understanding comes with and after new birth.

I’m not 100% sure what you mean by with but I think I’m good with this. This falls right in line with what I said earlier this is why we Baptize babies. Infants can be born again, through Baptism and after this they are raised in the faith and develop understanding.

The understanding that God gives before new birth is the understanding that you need it. Specifically, the conviction that one is a sinner, that there will be a judgement and that the righteous Jesus saves ( ministry of Holy Spirit from without.)

Yes and no.

Like I said earlier yes with adults. That is why we have RCIA so that they can understand what they need and why they need it.

No for infants. Once again as I have said over and over again if we insist God’s hands are tied unless we first come to an age where we understand then it is based on what we do for God not what God does for us. I’m sure you would agree that God can and does save some before they fall into sin. To think that God is a tyrant sitting up there waiting for us to screw up so that Jesus can redeem us would be unfair and unjust. God desires all to be saved, even when He knew us in the womb, His desire doesn’t start after we screw up, so why would we believe we can’t be born again until we screw up?

We can desire to be born again out of love, like a child desiring to be with their father. We don’t have to wait until we are unruly teenagers who come to realize dad was right all along.

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

Unfortunately, you may be right, and our gospels may have the same parts but in different order (regeneration before baptism etc.), thereby making them different.

However, I would qualify such a statement. Indeed some are regenerated by your gospel, and what I am more familiar with, that indeed some, or many, are regenerated by this other gospel. This should dull, and nullify for some, any anathemas given each other.

Reminds me a little bit of the apostles complaining to Jesus about these other disciples, that didn’t hang out with the apostles. Not a great analogy but….

Yes, not a good analogy. Those who are referred to, are NOT disciples…yet. If they become disciples, THEN they WILL be one with the apostles.

 

[mcq72]

Yes, not a good analogy. Those who are referred to, are NOT disciples…yet. If they become disciples, THEN they WILL be one with the apostles.

There is zero evidence that he was against the apostles, and not one with them…

Disciple or not , he did exactly what the apostles were sent out to do…he acted like a disciple

“for whoever is not against us is for us.”

“But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,”…Paul

The pre pentecost, Holy ghost apostles failed in ministerial envy, period.

Paul did better (of course after Pentecost, to be fair to the apostles, who even were calling Jesus “teacher”), and still praised that the gospel went out even if by those who were at odds with him.