P
paul_c
Guest
As said above, Matthias was chosen by Lot which was leaving it up to God.
I don’t know for sure whether an Apostle always knows God’s will. But I’m confident that he does when making major doctrinal decisions.
- Status
I don’t know for sure whether an Apostle always knows God’s will. But I’m confident that he does when making major doctrinal decisions.
M
michaelsmth626
Guest
Your quote about what was said in acts is a slanted reading at best. Quote; and had Ananias go to Paul on Straight Street, cure him of his blindness and bring him into the Church through Baptism. This is what the Lord told Ananias
Lets take a look at what it really says and what you are implying it says.
Nothing here about baptizing him, he was sent to restore Pauls sight. Ananias protested but complied.
This is the account of Pauls vision being restored.
If you read the account I don’t see anything about being water baptized. I dont see in Pauls or Ananias vision from Jesus anything about being baptized by Ananias or receiving the Spirit from Ananias, the vision only speaks of his sight. When catholics read baptism in scripture it is implied that this is with water. Ananias does say that, you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. But the question is what baptism and by who?
Be filled with the Holy Spirit, that is the baptism of Jesus not the water baptism of repentance of John. Now look at the last line it indicates just what Ananias said, he recieved his sight and the Holy Spirit.
You make it sound like he arose and was taken to the baptismal. I believe that Paul was healed and at the moment he arose, was filled with the Holy Spirit, the baptism of Jesus, that man has no control over or part of. That is why Jesus only revels the instruction to both Paul and Ananias “to receive his sight” The born of the Spirit is Jesus ministry and His alone, always has been and always will be. At the time Ananias was fulfilling the instruction from the Lord about the laying on of his hands quote verse 11 he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight. Ananias being born of the same Spirit was aware of what was about to take place. But his involvement in that action “receiving the Holy Spirit” was not part of his instruction from the Lord nor was it his to give. The Holy Spirit is not subject to the will of men, but rather men are subject to it.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Is this a publication that is written by someone who is wise?Soc4Jesus,
On discernment etc. May I recommend the Book “The Fulfillment of All Desire”. Well worth the read.
Peace
James
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
So PC, if the Apostles could not make a decision regarding a doctrinal matter, do you think it would be wise or unwise for them to settle the matter by chance? Let’s say, for example, that the Apostles were trying to decide whether it should be a requirement that all non-Jewish converts to Catholicism be circumcised. Should they make this decision by drawing straws (the short straw means cutting the penis down to size!) or should they flip a coin (heads you lose)?
Or would you say they should think of a better, more reliable way to discern the truth about a doctrinal matter?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Welcome to the dialog, Michael! Good to have a different perspective in the mix.
P
paul_c
Guest
Michael, Baptism always involves water. The only example of anyone recieving the Holy spirit without being baptized is Cornelius’ household and this was necessary to prove to Peter and subsequently the rest of the chruch that Gentiles would be allowed in. Notice that they were immediately baptized after that to make them members of the Church…
And regardless, even if you believe that Paul’s baptism was not of water, the fact remains that Jesus sent Ananias, a representative of the chruch to execute this baptism. Surely you recognize the significance of this. Becasue surely you recognize that Jesus could have sent Paul out without interaction of the Church, had he wanted to. But he didn’t. He wanted all to be part of the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
P
paul_c
Guest
The choice of Matthias was not a doctrinal decision. The Doctrinal decision to replace the Judas, was made by St. Peter, following his interpretation of scripture. The choice of Matthias was a personnel decision, after they had narrowed it down to two candidates. They left it to God to make the final decision between the two men. And frankly, its the doctrinal decision to replace Apostles as they died, and later to augment their number that matters most in our discussion here.So PC, if the Apostles could not make a decision regarding a doctrinal matter, do you think it would be wise or unwise for them to settle the matter by chance? Let’s say, for example, that the Apostles were trying to decide whether it should be a requirement that all non-Jewish converts to Catholicism be circumcised. Should they make this decision by drawing straws (the short straw means cutting the penis down to size!) or should they flip a coin (heads you lose)?
Or would you say they should think of a better, more reliable way to discern the truth about a doctrinal matter?
http://admin.emanuelnyc.org/media/documents/doc_150.jpg
Your judging that St. Paul was superior to St. Matthias has no place here. And frankly, who are we to judge the righteousness of anyone else, let alone an apostle of God?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
So PC, are you saying that when it comes to deciding doctrinal issues, using methods such as drawing straws and flipping a coin and rolling dice are unreliable ways to discern God’s will. But do you believe that, when it comes to choosing an Apostolic Successor, employing such games of chance are reliable ways to discern the will of God?
I’m sure Matthias was a good man, for i trust Peter’s judgment. I’m just asking if he was *the *man God chose to be the next Apostle. Peter thought Matthias or the other were the only possible choices, for he gave this criteria for an Apostolic successor:“Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
(Acts 1:21-22)
Please tell me, PC: Do you think Peter was correct? Do you believe this is a good requirement for an Apostolic Successor? Or do you think Peter was wrong to say that a successor to an Apostle must be “one of the men who have been with [them] the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among [them]”? That is, do you think (as Peter did) that an Apostolic successor can only be someone who was alive, and followed Jesus, when our Lord walked the earth?
M
michaelsmth626
Guest
You ignore what was written again to apply your own theology. Yes baptism will make you a member of a church that requires it. It won’t in itself administer the Holy Spirit. Do you deny that there are two types of baptism? Mark CH 1- 8 I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” If the first instance of the Spirit being pored out to the gentiles was done threw hearing and believing the word then that is all that is necessary to receive the Spirit. All the references to baptism need to apply this truth. You are baptized with water as a sign of repentance or you are baptized with the HS by Jesus. Its really not that complicated if you listen to what is written.
As I pointed out in the post you replied to Jesus never sent Ananias to administer the HS or baptize him, thats you applying your own support for the catholic doctrine to the verse. Surely you recognize the significance of this. The sending of the HS is not subject to men. Who is it that John says baptize with the Holy Spirit? He didn’t say himself or Ananias he said He referring to Jesus.
Will you please indicate where Jesus sent Ananias to baptize Paul with the HS like you said, and where Jesus told Paul the same.
M
michaelsmth626
Guest
I agree with Socrates4Jesus the foundation of the wall around the new Jerusalem John vision in Rev 21:14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
I would be certain it contained Pauls name, along with the 11 that attended the last supper. I would not be surprised to not see Matthias name . Your defense of Peters choice over the Lords calling the 12th is again arguing for catholic doctrine in spite of what is written. Read Mark CH7 and see what Jesus said to the Pharisees and scribes about monkeying around with the original message given to Mosses.
Do you expect to see Matthias name listed on the foundation of the wall in rev 21 and Pauls being absent? There were only 12 appointed.
And your A and B brand of HS, one that is given to the believers and the Spirit that was given to the Apostles is not a different Spirit. The 12 were appointed to testify and establish the new covenant, this mission / ministry was never meant to be pass on to others. They and they alone carried out the Apostolic mission. These men were completely empowered to present a flawless representation of Jesus to the world threw the power of the HS. That is why the best example Christians have today is the original message contained in the NT letters, not the implied passing of this authoritative office threw the ages.
The Church could be indicated as the New Jerusalem, inside the wall containing the 12 Apostles names, it will never fail. The gates of hell will never penetrate this wall. The 12 and the 12 alone were empowered by the same Holy Spirit we all receive, their mission was of the highest importance laying the foundation of the wall, it contains no other names but their own. The 12 gates contained the names of the 12 tribes. That picture now indicates the seed of Abraham “Jesus” has chosen 12 and layed a foundation that the 12 tribes, the OT patriarchs and believers can now rise from. You see the Apostles do not stand on their predecessor brothers, they are the foundation that supports them and Jesus supports the 12 Apostles. Jesus is the Alpha the Rock foundation, and the Omega, the Chief corner stone, the stone the builders reject at the apex of the new Jerusalem Alpha and Omega both its foundation and its Crown.
BTW a chief corner stone is the apex of a pyramid drawing all four corners together at its summit. Its not a corner stone but the stone that draws all four corner stones together. That’s only one geometric figure that I know of that contains a Chief corner stone.
P
paul_c
Guest
I’m not second guessing St. Peter on either account.
At the time this decision was made, in the 10 days between Jesus’s ascension and Pentacost, it made absolute sense to require an Apostle to have experienced all that Jesus said and did personally. Afterall, they were being called on to be personal witnesses to those events and to share their own revelations. And who are we, 2000 years later to second guess these events that were undoubtedly driven by the Holy Spirit.I’m sure Matthias was a good man, for i trust Peter’s judgment. I’m just asking if he was *the *man God chose to be the next Apostle. Peter thought Matthias or the other were the only possible choices, for he gave this criteria for an Apostolic successor:“Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
(Acts 1:21-22)
Please tell me, PC: Do you think Peter was correct? Do you believe this is a good requirement for an Apostolic Successor? Or do you think Peter was wrong to say that a successor to an Apostle must be “one of the men who have been with [them] the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among [them]”? That is, do you think (as Peter did) that an Apostolic successor can only be someone who was alive, and followed Jesus, when our Lord walked the earth?
P
paul_c
Guest
I would say, rather, that it is you twisting events to support YOUR theology. Jesus clearly sent Ananias, a representative of the Church, to cure Saul’s blindness and bring him into the church. If it wasn’t Jesus intention to integrate Paul into the church, why involve Ananias? The whole discussion about baptism by the holy spirit or by water is a red herring in this discussion.
Why ,by the way ,do,you deny the efficacy of water baptism, when it is clear from scripture that all members of the church were baptized for the foregiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy spirit?. Jesus says in John 3:5:
Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
And St. peter says to the first converts at Pentacost in Acts2: 37-39
37Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
38 Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
And yes, there were two exceptional events at the beginningn of the Chruch. In the first, toungues of fire were seen on each of the Apostle’s head as a sign of their recieving the Holy spirit at Pentacost. This fulfills St.John’s prophesy. But the visible tongues of fire have not been repeated since.
And yes, the household of Cornelius was given the spirit simply through hearing to demonstrate unequivocally to Peter (and to the other Apostles) that bringing Gentiles into the church was acceptable. This was also a special event that has not been repeated.
And in this case, Peter immediately baptizes them with water. Why do you think he did this, if it didn’t matter ?
P
paul_c
Guest
Look, you are trying to claim the Catholic Church is not the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church though YOUR reading of one line in revelations. and in fact, you are trying to discredit the Church by your judgement on who the most appropriate Apostles are to have their names written on the 12 gates. isn’t that a little presumptuous? There were 12 apostles in place at pentacost, including Matthias, who was brought into the fold prior to that date. After that, more men were considered Apostles than just the 12. In fact, in Acts 14:14, both Barnabas and Paul are called Apostles. So we know there were at least 14 by 50 AD and probably more were appointed by the original Apostles to carry the word of God to the world. As to which 12 Apostles are listed at the Gates, it is never said. Could Paul replace one of the others? Could Barnabas? Could some one else? Who knows for sure? But I would bet on the original 12 witnesses of Jesus’ life and death, which includes Matthias. I must presume he was picked for a reason.
As for your claims that the Apostolic mission was not to be handed on to future genereations, that is absurd. Did you expect Christ’s church to stop after one generation? Indeed, they were adding Apostles to minister to the growing church before the first generation was even dead. see above for proof of that point.
M
michaelsmth626
Guest
I like that point(Acts 1:21-22)
[/INDENT]Please tell me, PC: Do you think Peter was correct? Do you believe this is a good requirement for an Apostolic Successor? Or do you think Peter was wrong to say that a successor to an Apostle must be “one of the men who have been with [them] the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among [them]”? That is, do you think (as Peter did) that an Apostolic successor can only be someone who was alive, and followed Jesus, when our Lord walked the earth?
My presentation an statement about the foundation of the wall around the new Jerusalem supporting the 12 gates may be wrong. Thinking in more detail, Mosses was instructed to place the 12 tribes 3 to a side around the Tabernacle. So the Gates were constructed first. The wall of the NT Apostles completed the now insurmountable barrier. They stand side by side.
Some food for thought.
Now just take with you the picture of the New Jerusalem Rev 21 with the wall now completed, the 12 Apostles names on its foundation, the 12 tribes “the 12 gates” that surrounded the Tabernacle of God, no defense or intersession for the inhabitants of the OT because there was no wall. And now after the Apostles succeeded there is a wall tieing the gates together that surrounding the Tabernacle the New Jerusalem. The accuser the great dragon, the serpent of old, coming and going as he wished was thrown out buy the blood of the Lamb. The gates of hell will never over take the wall or gates.
I just love it when Gods plan comes together. Nice picture He paints, the closer you look the more stunning the details.
P
pneuma07
Guest
dear Soc.
Clement is recognized as the fourth, after Cletus/Anacletus. As you know there are different presentations of the sequence of the very first bishops of Rome in the sources.
Is that the question you want to explore ?
M
michaelsmth626
Guest
You the Pope, John the writer of Revelation Jesus the Father and the Holy Spirit all need to get together and change Johns vision or start adding names to the foundation.
Acts 1- 1 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
You make a lot of claims against me for pointing out your misrepresentation of what Jesus said to Paul and Ananias. I didn’t judge you the scripture judged you. Is it presumptuous of me or John being lead by the HS that wrote their are 12 names on the foundation of the wall. I simply point to what the scripture says. Their is not 11 or 13 or 50 or 1000 or 10,000 names on the foundation but 12, so if you have a problem with that take it up with the author of the scriptures. Jesus never told Paul or Ananias anything other than restoring Pauls vision. He Jesus indicated nothing about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Other than stating Paul is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. If you have a problem with it take it the the author of scripture. If scripture does not enhance the catholic position take it up with the catholic church or the author of the scriptures. Do I make myself clear? You are attacking a reader of scripture for reading scripture. Acts 1:2 says that Jesus chose “whom He had chosen” Did Jesus chose Matthias? Jesus did make a choice and careful examination of that choice and the events that took place don’t exactly fit your presentation.
P
pneuma07
Guest
Great that we seem to agree that the above argument on which many protestant brothers seem to found the teaching authorities of their magisteriums, or of themselves, appear flawed.You make a valid point, P7.
And i spent several weeks in another discussion thread trying to nail down just what is the difference between spiritual discernment and spiritual deception, and how one can know he has contacted one or the other. Perhaps i gave up on that dialog too soon. So are you saying that God reveals wisdom of His will to only a select few? If so, who are these few?
Let me reformulate your questions: what can be the decision-making organ in the Church ? We remember the model in Acts 15.
If the Church is just invisible, there is just no decision making.
If the churches are many, each has its own different decision making process, with different results.
Let’s then suppose that there still exist the ONE and visible Church we see in Acts 15.
Would you expect her to have a teaching and governing body, able to tackle the matters of the present age as the Church did in Acts 15 ?
If so, who should we expect to be members of this body ?
If we read acts 6
1 At that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.
2
2 So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table.
3
Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task,
4
whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
5
The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
6
They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.
together with the quoted passages in Clement IMHO we can get that the Apostles, having given the deacons other tasks, selected the bishops to succeed them in the ministry of the word ( which implies preaching, teaching, guarding the deposit of the faith and deciding according to that ).
Does that make sense ?
in Christ
P7
A
Andy_III
Guest
I must say that this is a very long thread, I have just spent the last few days reading every post. I have a few notes which may help:
@Socrates4Jesus:
It seems that you not only delight in dialog, but also in being on the island, which is a suggestion that could also be made of Gilligan. You have been presented many cases here for your concerns, and often seem to not even read them, or ignore them, putting forth your own ideas. Actually I should not say these are your own ideas, because they seem to come directly from Protestant negative teachings about the Catholic Church. You also have said that you want to prove Catholcism from the assumption that you can reason correctly about Scripture whenever you want to. If a person says “I am guided by the Holy Spirit”, that does not mean they are! If Jesus says you are guided by Me and by the Holy Spirit, I believe Him!
A note about essentials vs. non-essentials:
When denominations group together by essentials, and ignore their differences, it amounts to slicing away the faith of the Church. Since Soc4J likes pictures, I attached this one that seems appropriate. If each circle represents the belief of a denomination, the red area is the intersection (a.k.a. the essentials). As more circles are added, the red area gets smaller and smaller until at the end, it is either empty or it contains one thing - You, “the God almighty”. Jesus left an easy test to see if you are in the right circle: If you recognize the Rock and the Rock recognizes you. The Rock is the foundation of the Catholic Church, Peter and his faith. Can you claim to have the same faith as Peter? Some do, but doing so does not grant you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. The keys have been passed down through Apostolic succession.
Also, I really like the symbolism when Soc4J said the Protawoohoo (sp?) tribe worship the snake totem. (snake = Satan)
It is appropriate since the big draw of Protestantism is that it makes “you” very important - the interpreter of Scripture. Building up pride in this way is exactly how you know who operates. Also, the word diablo comes from a longer word meaning “to scatter”. What better way to mislead than to create a bunch of “decoy” churches to pull people from the real Church?
http://ozviz.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/geometry/circlearea/diagram2.gif
@Socrates4Jesus:
It seems that you not only delight in dialog, but also in being on the island, which is a suggestion that could also be made of Gilligan. You have been presented many cases here for your concerns, and often seem to not even read them, or ignore them, putting forth your own ideas. Actually I should not say these are your own ideas, because they seem to come directly from Protestant negative teachings about the Catholic Church. You also have said that you want to prove Catholcism from the assumption that you can reason correctly about Scripture whenever you want to. If a person says “I am guided by the Holy Spirit”, that does not mean they are! If Jesus says you are guided by Me and by the Holy Spirit, I believe Him!
A note about essentials vs. non-essentials:
When denominations group together by essentials, and ignore their differences, it amounts to slicing away the faith of the Church. Since Soc4J likes pictures, I attached this one that seems appropriate. If each circle represents the belief of a denomination, the red area is the intersection (a.k.a. the essentials). As more circles are added, the red area gets smaller and smaller until at the end, it is either empty or it contains one thing - You, “the God almighty”. Jesus left an easy test to see if you are in the right circle: If you recognize the Rock and the Rock recognizes you. The Rock is the foundation of the Catholic Church, Peter and his faith. Can you claim to have the same faith as Peter? Some do, but doing so does not grant you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. The keys have been passed down through Apostolic succession.
Also, I really like the symbolism when Soc4J said the Protawoohoo (sp?) tribe worship the snake totem. (snake = Satan)
It is appropriate since the big draw of Protestantism is that it makes “you” very important - the interpreter of Scripture. Building up pride in this way is exactly how you know who operates. Also, the word diablo comes from a longer word meaning “to scatter”. What better way to mislead than to create a bunch of “decoy” churches to pull people from the real Church?http://ozviz.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/geometry/circlearea/diagram2.gif
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Thanks for saying so, Michael, but i was making no point; just asking questions.I like that point
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
(Revelation 21:14)
Yes, i find the passage you cite fascinating. Also fascinating are these words:
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
(Matthew 19:28)
Do you think, Michael, that the Apostles were not looking for a continuing line of successors? Do you think, perhaps that they were not looking that far into the future, but just trying to keep their number to 12 in order for there to be 12 ready to rule on Christ’s return?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Neither am i. No guessing, here, just trying to understand. As Socrates said:A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense. Let us try to understand him.
(Theaetetus, 152)
Let’s take the side of Peter’s defense and prove him in the right. In trying to understand Peter’s actions, and prove that his decision was according to Jesus’ desire, how do you propose we prove Peter’s thought process was perfect?
Yes, that’s a good line of defense, but we must anticipate the Protestant Prosecution. To defend Peter, we want to be ready to rebut whatever sleazy assault they sling! For example, during Peter’s trial, they might call Paul to the stand. They might ask him to give testimony:
PROTESTANT PROSECUTOR: Paul–was this always your name?
PAUL: No.
PROS: When did you change your name?
PAUL: It was not me who changed my name, it was Jesus.
PROS: Are you an Apostle?
PAUL: Yes.
PROS: By whose authority?
PAUL: I suppose by the authority of Jesus, who chose me for the office. Though I cannot imagine why! Later, Christ’s choice was confirmed by Peter and the other Apostles.
PROS: You were not always a follower of Jesus Christ, were you?
PAUL: No. In fact, I was an enemy of the one whom I now serve, and an enemy of those who served Him. I did terrible things to them. Had them murdered. I – I deserve death and hell, and consider myself the worst of sinners.
PROS: But you had a conversion.
PAUL: Yes. Jesus appeared to me.
PROS: And that’s when your name was changed?
PAUL: Yes, and also when Jesus said he chose me to be His spokesman.
PROS: Will you give testimony of the events of that day for the honorable gentlemen of the jury?
SOCRATES4JESUS (Lawyer for the defense): Objection! You’re honor, the defense fails to see the relevance of this inquiry. And it’s understood by all the distinguished members of the jury that this man is an Apostle. I’m sure you will agree there is no good reason to waste their precious time, and the valuable time of the court, by giving a drawn out account of his conversion.
PROS: Your honor, the people are questioning the witness for the very fact that his testimony HAS relevance. The people intend to show that the defendant’s premise was in error, and that his choice of Matthias was a grave injustice to the defendant, and contrary to the very will of God!
JUDGE: I’ll allow it. But be brief, prosecutor.
- Status