Prodigal's Isle

[pneuma07]

Yes, Apostolic Succession is a fine whistle stop on the way. But what is the final destination that is printed on my train ticket? To where, did i say, am i trying to get?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...tic.flickr.com/2255/2512334387_aa7257cb09.jpg

Dear Soc,

you stated:
I’d like to be rescued, but the only way i can see to get off this God-forsaken place is to decide, once and for all, whether the Catholic Church is an authority i can trust to get me home safely. That’s my goal. *

If it is not a macroscopic case of self-deception, it seems to me I more or less understand your goal.
Do you want please to restate it, even more plainly, just to be sure ?

It looks like you are being offered a lot of good food for thought by several posters Soc.
I don’t care that you are ignoring my points, if you consider them far from what you feel essential now.

I hope the thread has been helpful for you so far.
But now tell us what at present you feel we must tackle. A stumbling block, an old or new objection, the most disturbing things about accepting the authority of the Church you can imagine… Whatever really matters for you now.

In Christ
P7

 

[LionHeart777]

Socrates 4 Jesus and Michael,

as one who has mostly just been skimming the posts I will have to go back and take a better look. I had never read the event in Acts where Mathias was selected and thought that Peter was in error…it just never came to my mind as I believed that God was guiding them. That being said, I am having a hard time trying to understand what objection you guys would have with Peter? In other words, I still don’t have any issue…it’s just a non-issue for me. I’ll go back and read the verses tonight.

Michael, I am one who used to believe that one received the Spirit by believeing and that once sealed that seal guaranteed that the person was heaven bound. From reading your posts about whether or not the Spirit was indwelling Peter at this time or not leads me to the suspicion that you hold the view that I once held. Perhaps that is why you are having a hard time realizing that the indwelling of the Spirit might not really matter; that is, the fact that one does not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit doesn’t neccessarily prevent God from guiding or using one. For me , this is another non-issue.

Again, it was my readings of early Christian writings that changed my mind about one being able to sin in such a grievous matter that the Spirit would leave that person–this is just a side note as I know that early Christin writings don’t influence your views very much. Anyway, when I go back and read the Bible more, I can see how that intepretation was wrong. Don’t get me wrong, one can argue such a position convincingly from the Scriptures, as I used too do. It’s just that now that I have more info, I can see places where such interpretations may be problematic; i.e. that the Spirit comes by believing alone and that it stays w/ one for ever regardless of what they do w/ their free will is problematic in light of Patristic and Biblical evidence.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Oh but you are my friend. At least that is how it appears to those of us who have been talking with you for some time. Here is the Flow,
I made a book recommendation.
Instead of thanking and accepting or declining said recommendation, you asked a question - seemingly (to me) unrelated to that recommendation.
I answered that question and noted that it seemed unconnected.
You ignored that and asked asecond question which I also answered, again asking what was the connection.
You finally said this when I insisted that you give a reason. I know nothing of the author’s book, but i’m willing to bet the author is unwise. (And i bet you’re dying to know if i’m bluffing!) But you have to place your bet, or fold, before i lay my cards on the table.So - Which of us is playing a game?
To this I responded that I was disappointed. whether you read or don’t read the book is relatively unimportant. The only one who loses is you.

You really do seem to love to “Stain the gnat” don’t you. If it is your soul that is “in the pot” then act like it. Speak plainly and honestly. If you wish to ask questions, do so, but also be willing to answer questions posed to you.

Yea - here is a line that helps us to accept that you are serious.

My mind is made up on the matter and I expressed that in my previous post.
You may choose to accept my book recommendation or not.
You may choose to tell me WHY you accept it or not.
Both of these things are entirely up to you by virtue of your God Given Free will.

Me, I will move on to other questions of more significance to your soul than whether you read this book or not.

That’s my hand - “Laid on the table”.

Peace
James

I do apologize, James. Didn’t mean to so easily offend you. My thought is this: The biblical author James says,If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

(James 1:5)

Your author is selling his wisdom, for i must buy his book to get it. God gives His wisdom away at no charge. So i’m wondering whether your author is imitating God. I’m sure he has some good things to say, and perhaps he is quite sincere. Maybe he has just never read, or thought about James, chapter 1.

Again, i’m truly sorry for having offended you, and not having notice until now. Guess i’m a bit too much like Socrates, who said of himself,The world in general have not found me out, and therefore they only say of me that I am the strangest of mortals and drive men to their wit’s end.

(Theaetetus, 149)

 

[paul_c]

I do apologize, James. Didn’t mean to so easily offend you. My thought is this: The biblical author James says,If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

(James 1:5)

Your author is selling his wisdom, for i must buy his book to get it. God gives His wisdom away at no charge. So i’m wondering whether your author is imitating God. I’m sure he has some good things to say, and perhaps he is quite sincere. Maybe he has just never read, or thought about James, chapter 1.

Again, i’m truly sorry for having offended you, and not having notice until now. Guess i’m a bit too much like Socrates, who said of himself,The world in general have not found me out, and therefore they only say of me that I am the strangest of mortals and drive men to their wit’s end.

(Theaetetus, 149)

Honestly, what is wrong with you? He recommended a book and you spend a dozen posts debating the merits of the author. I’ve never seen anything like it. If you aren’t being serious about this quest, maybe we shouldn’t be spending so much time on it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The power to bind and loose carries with it protection from error when it comes to Church teaching on faith and morals. This is necessitated by the statement in the pertinent passages that says what is “bound on earth will be bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Revelation 21:27 indicates that “nothing unclean will enter heaven”. This truth necessitates protection from error in binding and loosing by the Church. The Church cannot bind or loose anything on earth that would be unclean and have such a thing bound or loosed in heaven for nothing unclean can enter heaven. This is the fundamental scriptural plank for the protection from error associated with infallibility. It is important not to misunderstand the teaching on infallibility. It is only protection from error when it comes to matters of faith and morals as they are officially proclaimed and taught as binding on the faithful. Is there a Christian alive today that would proclaim that the teaching on circumcision proclaimed by the first council in Jerusalem is in error? Is there any argument that this is a teaching that came from the Church and not directly from Jesus words in the gospel? This decision is the archetype and pattern of binding and loosing and the establishment of true doctrine under the protection of the Holy Spirit. This is infallibility at work.

I hope this helps.

Thank you, Pax. I’d like to discuss this matter with you, for two reasons: One, you are not easily offended. Two, you have always given me more kindness and respect than most people would say i deserve. Are you saying that loosing and binding is ***determining ***the truth about faith and morals, or ***discerning ***the truth about faith and morals?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Peter has obviously been processing what had just happened, Jesus’ betrayal, the crucifixion, Judas’ suicide, the resurection, and the promise of power from above given to the apostles from Christ himself. …

Perhaps there is no need, for God might be doing the talking for you, Ut–that is, if it is indeed Him who is whispering to me at the moment. Were you going to make the point that there was a sense of urgency in Peter’s decision? Were you going to say that, knowing Pentecost was coming soon, he wanted to be sure there were 12 men to bear witness on that day?

 

[michaelsmth626]

Hi Michael,

You gave me quite a lot to respond to; I’ll tell you what I’ll respond to what I decide and if I have disappointed you maybe you can re:state or re:ask something. Regarding the “binding and loosing”, I’ll leave that alone for now as I was just jumping on the Baptismal Regeneration in an attempt to show you how I believe that your Scripture interpretation is incorrect if you reject Baptismal Regeneration. When I held to “Sola Scriptura”, actually I used Protestant Bible commentaries etc., but anyway, I rejected Baptismal Regeneration. I believe now that my interpretations were incorrect.

A couple of points I want to make;

1. You pit the ECF’s and Apostles against each other as if they disagreed; I don’t believe that they did; at least regarding Baptismal Regeneration. That is not to say that the ECF’s are infallible but I am saying that, at least in this specific case, you appear to be making a false dichotomy; that is when you asked me if I were present in front of Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the ECF’s. I believe that we would all be on the one side whereas you (assuming you reject the teaching of the Apostles and ECF’s on Baptism) would be on another–regarding that Doctrine.

It is not a false dichotomy it a completely legitimate comparison I’ll address it in closing.

1. Unless you are a JW or something, which I don’t believe you are, the people I refer to as ECF’s were early Christians found in the 1 Church established by Christ. If you are a Christian, than I believe that they are your predecessors too (if you’re not comfortable w/ “Fathers.”) Although, I would submit that they do “belong” to the Catholic Church as in they are part of one and the same Catholic Church that you disagree with. Even you too maybe part of this Church , albeit in a different way.

Their is no evidence that supports these people “Fathers of the CC” were anything other than people in an office of worldly authority. No evidence other than the CC interpretation that Peter passed his presumed office of authority on to them. This is the debatable question this thread was started over. The question still remains and will likely remain until the return of Jesus, what authority did Peter posses? did it differ from the other Apostles? Can the office of Apostle ship be passed to another? The last I am sure can never be done anymore than someone can take the salvation they have received and give it to another. You can witness and teach but even this is done in the HS. You can plant the seed and till the ground, water and pull the weeds from around it, but only God breaths the Gift of life into it and causes it to grow. May times speaking to people about my faith listening answering questions, allowing the Lord threw the HS to draw a beautiful mosaic, some say I wish I knew what you knew. How I have prayed in those moments please Lord just let them see, just for a moment, and thou I would gladly pull a piece of myself out and offer it that they could taste that goodness, it never happens. To let them hold just a part, just for a moment, of what He has shared with me is not mine to give.
Each heart knows its own bitterness,
and no one else can share its joy. Proverbs 14-10

1. Regarding your personal interpretation of Scripture about Baptism:

I believe that it is logical to conclude that if what you teach is correct, than it seems to me that that would be the view of Baptism that we see held by those who came after the Apostles. It is not. In fact, if you want to look around at those who have valid Apostolic succession (i.e. the Orthodox and Catholics), they are in agreement.

That being said; there is no contradiction between the ECF’s and the Apostles regarding Baptism; rather a contradiction between your interpretation of the Bible and the ECF’s.

I notice you use no scripture at all to support your claim. Your testimony stands on what those taught after the Apostles. This bring us back to a false dichotomy the definition implies in itself that their is more than a single answer.

involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.

My offering you a choice between Jesus and John TB as opposed to your church fathers, you then implyed it is a false dichotomy indicates you believe that their is more than one answer. Your lack of scriptural reference and instead reference post Apostle history indicates you at least give the same weight to the fathers of the CC as you do the recorded words of John and Jesus.

You have spoken to my interpretations, if you would please offer yours or your father interpretation of the verse I quoted about the distinction between water baptism and Holy Spirit Baptism. Both John and Jesus made the distinction between them. Your choice in the false dichotomy is evident. You believe the church fathers.

Johns claim about baptism, the man that introduced it.

Mathew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Jesus reiterates the same just before He baptizes the Apostles.

Acts 1:5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

The 2 are distinctly different. Do you have some evidence other than the church fathers like scripture that can place the 2 into one. I have quoted both Jesus and the founder of the act of baptism and they both say that there are 2 one of water and one of the Spirit.

If we now look at another favorite verse the catholics like to use to support baptism we will see the same, 2 distinct baptisms. One of the flesh and one of the Spirit. One does not give rise to the other.

4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Notice Jesus is replying to Nicodemus question about being born again, being born again is not entering into the womb again or the work of the flesh, any more than being baptized will make make you born again. Jesus further says that you must have both, we see in Acts 10 that the Gentiles were not baptized to receive the HS so we must look to the meaning John gave for the baptism which was repentance. I am going to reply to paul c about this.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

you stated:
I’d like to be rescued, but the only way i can see to get off this God-forsaken place is to decide, once and for all, whether the Catholic Church is an authority i can trust to get me home safely*. That’s my goal.

If it is not a macroscopic case of self-deception, it seems to me I more or less understand your goal.
Do you want please to restate it, even more plainly, just to be sure ?

It looks like you are being offered a lot of good food for thought by several posters Soc.
I don’t care that you are ignoring my points, if you consider them far from what you feel essential now.

I hope the thread has been helpful for you so far.
But now tell us what at present you feel we must tackle. A stumbling block, an old or new objection, the most disturbing things about accepting the authority of the Church you can imagine… Whatever really matters for you now.

In Christ
P7

Yes, P7, that’s my destination. Everything else is a brief stop on the way. Sorry for ignoring your points. Was not aware i was doing so. So many people throwing stones that it’s hard to give each person who actually is trying to help the attention he deserves.

Yes, i have you and others to thank for showing me the meaning of Matthew 16:19. I can see from Acts that the Apostles intended to have successors for those of their numbers who were lost. Not sure whether they had their eyes on the centuries to come, or were just trying to keep things an even dozen (or odd baker’s dozen) until Christ returned. I see nothing wrong with the idea that the survivors were wanting to continue the Apostolic tradition by appointing the most trusted among their ranks to continue shepherding the flock after the original Apostles were gone.

So if you want to bring some points to my attention that i’ve overlooked (not intentionally, of course, for i’ve done my best to respond to everyone; but i do have a tendency to miss the forest for the trees) then by all means, please do so! However, i think that you and others have helped me to see the truth of the previous paragraph and i don’t need much more convincing regarding them.

Now since you ask, my present concern has to do with Peter. (And i’m almost afraid to mention this, for i’ve appeared to have struck a nerve with some by even making the suggestion. So if what i ask offends you as much as it has already offended others, then please let me know and i’ll keep my questions to myself.) You see, what i’ve failed to really see until now, and what frightens me (now that i do see it) to the point where i can barely hide it behind my mask of poor humor, is this whole question of the apparent deception of Peter. That is that which Jesus appears to accuse the Apostle. One moment Jesus says this:

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:17)

And the next moment Jesus says this to Peter:

“Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

(Matthew 16:23)

And these Satanic-inspired words Peter utters AFTER Jesus gives him the authority to loose and bind! I just don’t know what to make of this, P7. The words of James keep ringing in my mind’s ears:

Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be!

(James 3:10)

And i’m dismayed that out of the same mouth (Peter’s) came the blessing of faith, and the cursing of anti-faith. My trust in Peter has been shaken, P7. I hope that you will help restore my faith in him.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Honestly, what is wrong with you? He recommended a book and you spend a dozen posts debating the merits of the author. I’ve never seen anything like it. If you aren’t being serious about this quest, maybe we shouldn’t be spending so much time on it.

“If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”

(John 18:23)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

To Everyone Posting on this thread.

I will say one thing more, in general, about this conversation.
Socrates4Jesus is giving us a prime example of why The Church, after nearly 2000 years, is as complex as she is.

Many Protestants, especially evangelicals and nondenominationals, try to get back to the “Root Church”, to the true “Biblical Church” of the early days. They long for the simplicity of the Gospel and they are right. The Gospel IS simple. Love God - with you rwhole heart mind and soul, Love neighbor as yourself. Believe on Christ, repent and be baptized. Pray to Our Father in Heaven in the words Christ Himslef gave us.

Simple right??

Well it is until you get people such as Socrates4Jesus who ask question after question after question. Now I am not saying this to get down on Soc4Jesus but rather to make the point that, just as we here try to answer these questions and clarify doctrines and issues, so has the Church from the early times on. Even those who form the new church communities based on the “Structure” in acts soon find themselves needing to answer questions that are not entirely clear from Scripture, or find themselves in disagreements over just what the “clear” meaning of scripture is.

For the Church, each question of substance that came up needed an answer, a clarification, based on the teachings of Christ and the Oral Tradition of the Church. Over time these answers formed into the large number of historical church teachings, the catachism, Canon Law and so forth. So today, some look at the Church and say - she is too full of rules, too complicated, to “restrictive” etc.

Well - Socrates4Jesus is giving us a good lesson in how and why such compexity forms.

Thank you Soc for this demonstration.

Peace
James

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

(1 Peter 3:15-16)

 

[paul_c]

“If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”

(John 18:23)

I’ve been trying to get across to you that you are not approaching this with the seriousness that it deserves. You allow yourself to take all kinds of tangents and you aren’t respecting the time and energy of the people who are trying to help you. If you truly want to get off the island, act like it. Reflect on the truth prayerfully and reverently , because that is what is required in true conversion. This is not to say you can’t have a sense of humor, but it does have its place.

 

[JRKH]

Socrates4Jesus,
I am sorry that you feel that I was offended regarding the whoe book recommendation issue, I was not. Frustrated would be a better word. I just never had anyone take such a course on such a simple matter.

I would now like to help you with this issue/concern you have about Peter.

Now since you ask, my present concern has to do with Peter. (And i’m almost afraid to mention this, for i’ve appeared to have struck a nerve with some by even making the suggestion. So if what i ask offends you as much as it has already offended others, then please let me know and i’ll keep my questions to myself.) You see, what i’ve failed to really see until now, and what frightens me (now that i do see it) to the point where i can barely hide it behind my mask of poor humor, is this whole question of the apparent deception of Peter. That is that which Jesus appears to accuse the Apostle. One moment Jesus says this:

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:17)

And the next moment Jesus says this to Peter:

“Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

(Matthew 16:23)

And these Satanic-inspired words Peter utters AFTER Jesus gives him the authority to loose and bind! I just don’t know what to make of this, P7. The words of James keep ringing in my mind’s ears:

Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be!

(James 3:10)

And i’m dismayed that out of the same mouth (Peter’s) came the blessing of faith, and the cursing of anti-faith. My trust in Peter has been shaken, P7. I hope that you will help restore my faith in him.

If your confidence in Peter was shaken here, just wait until you get to the Passion narrative where Peter denies knowing Christ three times!! Yet note that after the Resurrection it is Peter whom Christ sits with and tells three times to feed and tend His sheep. (John 21:15-17).
Peter did, in an emotional outburst, “remonstrate” Jesus and pray that Jesus be spared. Jesus, knew that this was NOT the Will of the Father and was, in fact a temptation to Jesus to act contrary to the Will of the Father. This is what Jesus was reacting against when He called Peter “a satan”.
Matthew 16:23
But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

One of the things that our Protestant brothers emphasize in verses16-18 is that Jesus is talking about Peter’s "Profession of faith and not Peter the man. The Catholic Church of course recocgnizes that Jesus is addressing BOTH the Profession and the one who made it.
The same is true here. Jesus reacts against the statement Peter makes, why? Because Peter is thinking in purely earthly terms and not in heavenly terms. Jesus emphatically kicks this notion out of Peter by His reaction. He then goes on to teach what is required of a true follower of Christ in verses 24-26. So this emphatic correction of Peter is to teach him “right thinking” as relates to the Heavenly Kingdom and leading The Church.

Hope this helps a bit

Peace
James

 

[michaelsmth626]

Michael Smith,
the reason you can’t explain why Peter would baptize Cornelius household after they had already recieved the Holy Spirit, is that you are interpreting the Bible through a faulty perspective.

Paul lets take a look at the complete story of Acts 10.
I’m going to make this brief I hope. So to outline it there is something very important about to take place.

It begins with an Angle that means its very important!!!

Acts 10:3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius!”

Followed by Peters vision. Peter is being Peter “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”and the vision is repleted three times.

he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.

So now we have and Angel and a Vision from the Lord. This makes this chapter very special!!! dont you agree?

Now you tell me how many occurrences in the bible are outlined with an Angel and the testimony of God. I can think of only one off the top of my head, that both an Angle and God confirmed something, that was Marys conception. Mary spoke with an Angle and in a vision God confirmed it with Joesph. Here we see the same thing, the recipient Cornelius like Mary becoming pregnant are both visited by an Angle. The other active participant Joesph and Peter both receive visions. In my opinion that is how important this event is. Its the fulfillment of all that Jesus has done the first fruits of the work on the cross to those other than the Jews, the HS is going unto all nations. The time of the Jews was up, the 70 weeks appointed to Danial and his people had been fulfilled. Salvation was offered to the Jews alone for the 3.5 years after the cross, after He confirmed the covenant, He left the house desolate, ending the sacrifice and offerings. Mathew 23-38

“ And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

This account of the Holy Spirit being receive by hearing the word alone is the culmination of the work and message of the Gospel. Beginning in the 3rd chapter of Genesis. He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise His heal. Cornelius was not pre baptized by John or any other Jew for that matter. But He and his house hold had been standing on the sidelines watching and hearing all that God was reveling threw Jesus, repenting, believing, being found of a good heart and mind Cornelius was selected as the vessel that Jesus and the Father would demonstrate the entire Gospel threw. Presenting the HS to the nations other than the Jews.

I agree with you statement about the Gentiles and men in general knowing right from wrong that still small voice in mens hearts is the HS tugging at them.

That is why it is said by Jesus the only unforgivable sin is the blasphemy or rejection of the HS. And Paul says that those born of the Spirit follow the law of the Spirit and are not condemned by or under the penalty the law. So lets not blur the line between repenting or submitting to the tug of the HS and being Born Again in the HS.

Same concept here.

Mark 7-14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”[f]
17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”[g] 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

 

[michaelsmth626]

He gave us baptism to mark us spiritually with the sign of faith, but the action to be baptized is a visible act, where the faithful must make an outward gesture to gain the graces to be saved, to be forgiven their prior sins and to become a member of the church. Baptism plays a prominent role throughout the New Testament for this reason. In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that no one can be saved without being born of Water and Spirit. Jesus had his disciples Baptized and was even baptized himself for this reason.

We all have the Spirit of God within us. It is what gives us life. It speaks to us as our consciences as well. When the Holy Spirit descended on the the Disciples at Pentacost, it was to give them special powers.

Answer: The apostle Paul clearly taught that we receive the Holy Spirit the moment we receive Jesus Christ as our Savior. First Corinthians 12:13 declares, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” Romans 8:9 tells us that if a person does not possess the Holy Spirit, he or she does not belong to Christ: “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.” Ephesians 1:13-14 teaches us that the Holy Spirit is the seal of salvation for all those who believe: “Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.”

These three passages make it clear that the Holy Spirit is received at the moment of salvation. Paul could not say that we all were baptized by one Spirit and all given one Spirit to drink if not all of the Corinthian believers possessed the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9 is even stronger, stating that if a person does not have the Spirit, he does not belong to Christ. Therefore, the possession of the Spirit is an identifying factor of the possession of salvation. Further, the Holy Spirit could not be the “seal of salvation” (Ephesians 1:13-14) if He is not received at the moment of salvation. Many scriptures make it abundantly clear that our salvation is secured the moment we receive Christ as Savior.

 

[paul_c]

Their is no evidence that supports these people “Fathers of the CC” were anything other than people in an office of worldly authority. No evidence other than the CC interpretation that Peter passed his presumed office of authority on to them. This is the debatable question this thread was started over. The question still remains and will likely remain until the return of Jesus, what authority did Peter posses? did it differ from the other Apostles? Can the office of Apostle ship be passed to another? The last I am sure can never be done anymore than someone can take the salvation they have received and give it to another. You can witness and teach but even this is done in the HS. You can plant the seed and till the ground, water and pull the weeds from around it, but only God breaths the Gift of life into it and causes it to grow. May times speaking to people about my faith listening answering questions, allowing the Lord threw the HS to draw a beautiful mosaic, some say I wish I knew what you knew. How I have prayed in those moments please Lord just let them see, just for a moment, and thou I would gladly pull a piece of myself out and offer it that they could taste that goodness, it never happens. To let them hold just a part, just for a moment, of what He has shared with me is not mine to give.
Each heart knows its own bitterness,
and no one else can share its joy. Proverbs 14-10

If the only thing you will accept is scriptural evidence, then you know that nothing is valid past 100AD. The early church Fathers demonstrate a continuity of scriptural interpretation from the Age of the Apostles to the present day. Their writing does not need to be considered inspired for this, because we are looking at is as written history. The fact is that Peter’s role has been continuously accepted for 2000 years. Its wriiten about in scripture and in all the historical accounts for the next 1500 years. It was only when men wanted to break away from the church because of their own vanity that Peter’s role was ever called into question, and that was done for expediency to support a false doctrine. Look, you can choose to ignore Peter’s leadership role despite the Scriptural and historical evidence, but who are you really fooling? As for your analogy about the succession of the leadership not being passed on being the same as faith not being past on. Well, first of all, leadership was always passed on. Kings passed on their kingdoms and preist passed on their preisthood. Why should the leadership of the church be any different. And second of all, why do you beleive that Faith can’t be passed on? Don’t you , as a Christian, believe in evangelization? isn’t that what you are not so subtly doing here?

I notice you use no scripture at all to support your claim. Your testimony stands on what those taught after the Apostles. This bring us back to a false dichotomy the definition implies in itself that their is more than a single answer.

My offering you a choice between Jesus and John TB as opposed to your church fathers, you then implyed it is a false dichotomy indicates you believe that their is more than one answer. Your lack of scriptural reference and instead reference post Apostle history indicates you at least give the same weight to the fathers of the CC as you do the recorded words of John and Jesus.

You have spoken to my interpretations, if you would please offer yours or your father interpretation of the verse I quoted about the distinction between water baptism and Holy Spirit Baptism. Both John and Jesus made the distinction between them. Your choice in the false dichotomy is evident. You believe the church fathers.

My apologetic discussion on this subject was focused entirely on scripture. See my post above.

Johns claim about baptism, the man that introduced it.

Did John really introduce Baptism? Was his Baptism of human or devine origin? Do you remember Jesus asking the scribes and pharisees this question in response to the question of whether Jesus authority was God given or man made? They didn’t answer. Will you?

Jesus reiterates the same just before He baptizes the Apostles.

The 2 are distinctly different. Do you have some evidence other than the church fathers like scripture that can place the 2 into one. I have quoted both Jesus and the founder of the act of baptism and they both say that there are 2 one of water and one of the Spirit.

If we now look at another favorite verse the catholics like to use to support baptism we will see the same, 2 distinct baptisms. One of the flesh and one of the Spirit. One does not give rise to the other.

You keep trying to separate Baptism from its function. and you ignore the scriptural support for its efficacy because you can’t bear the truth. There is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, the gaining of sacramental grace sufficient to be saved and entrance into the Church.

Notice Jesus is replying to Nicodemus question about being born again, being born again is not entering into the womb again or the work of the flesh, any more than being baptized will make make you born again. Jesus further says that you must have both, we see in Acts 10 that the Gentiles were not baptized to receive the HS so we must look to the meaning John gave for the baptism which was repentance. I am going to reply to paul c about this.

We are born again through baptism… have you never read 1Peter 3:19-22 where he describes the efficacy of baptism.
19 In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Recieving the Holy Spirit is insufficient to save you. You must still act according to the will of God as derected by the Spirit. We have free will. The Spirit,while powerful, does not usurp our free will. God wants us to seek him of our own choice…

And yes, I saw how you tried to break baptism apart from the reception of the holy spirit. But you did not accoutn for the fact that you must be born of WATER and Spirit. because water baptism saves. St Peter says that again in the quote above. How can you deny scripture?

 

[paul_c]

Answer: The apostle Paul clearly taught that we receive the Holy Spirit the moment we receive Jesus Christ as our Savior. First Corinthians 12:13 declares, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” Romans 8:9 tells us that if a person does not possess the Holy Spirit, he or she does not belong to Christ: “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.” Ephesians 1:13-14 teaches us that the Holy Spirit is the seal of salvation for all those who believe: “Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.”

These three passages make it clear that the Holy Spirit is received at the moment of salvation. Paul could not say that we all were baptized by one Spirit and all given one Spirit to drink if not all of the Corinthian believers possessed the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9 is even stronger, stating that if a person does not have the Spirit, he does not belong to Christ. Therefore, the possession of the Spirit is an identifying factor of the possession of salvation. Further, the Holy Spirit could not be the “seal of salvation” (Ephesians 1:13-14) if He is not received at the moment of salvation. Many scriptures make it abundantly clear that our salvation is secured the moment we receive Christ as Savior.

No scripture says that our salvation is secured the moment we recieve Christ as our savior. This is wishful thinking on your part, supported by carefully choosing lines of scripture out of theri original context. Sure the Holy Spirit is the seal of salvation for those that believe, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t lose your salvation. that second part is a wishful extension. The fact is, even St. Paul, as holy as he was, stated that he had to persevere in the Faith to be saved. He says this in multiple epistles. And every epistle has a section on how to lead the Christian life in order to be saved. It is not a one time you are saved event, no matter how much Protestants wish it was.

Your theology renders invalid all moral teaching. it renders love pointless. All it values is Faith and in fact one time, spur of the moment faith. How can you beleive that this is correct, when Jesus made clear that Chrisianity is all about Loving God and Loving your neighbor as yourself. You quote 1Corinthians 12. I suggest you read 1Corinthians 13 and see how Paul values Faith in comparison to Love…

 

[Pax]

… Are you saying that loosing and binding is ***determining ***the truth about faith and morals, or ***discerning ***the truth about faith and morals?

Soc in Christ,

I suppose that the answers would depend upon the definition of the terms. I checked the online dictionary to see how they might apply. The online Websters says the following about each. I am only including from the Websters that which seems to be related to binding and loosing as used in scripture. The other uses or connotations are not included.

discern:
–to detect with the eyes <discerned a figure approaching through the fog; to detect with senses other than vision
–to recognize or identify as separate and distinct : discriminate
–to come to know or recognize mentally

intransitive verb
: to see or understand the difference

determine:
transitive verb
– to fix conclusively or authoritatively <determine national policy; to decide by judicial sentence ; to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities.

–to fix the boundaries of; to limit in extent or scope
–to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation

intransitive verb
to come to a decision

synonyms: decide, discover

Based on the definitions I would say that binding and loosing in scripture is to both decide and to discern.

 

[michaelsmth626]

My apologetic discussion on this subject was focused entirely on scripture. See my post above.

This was not written to you you are hijacking my reply to LionHeart777

Did John really introduce Baptism? Was his Baptism of human or devine origin? Do you remember Jesus asking the scribes and pharisees this question in response to the question of whether Jesus authority was God given or man made? They didn’t answer. Will you?

Yes it was from God. It was to prepare the way for Jesus, repent for the Kingdom of Gog is at hand.

You keep trying to separate Baptism from its function. and you ignore the scriptural support for its efficacy because you can’t bear the truth. There is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, the gaining of sacramental grace sufficient to be saved and entrance into the Church.

We are born again through baptism… have you never read 1Peter 3:19-22 where he describes the efficacy of baptism.
19 In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Doesn’t this say what I have been?
It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience,
Its not the water or action like taking a bath “cleaning the body” but an appeal to God for a clear conscience. It is an appeal to God a sign, an appeal is not proof positive.
So you tell me in Act 10 did they not appeal before they received the HS? I would say they did. So what function did baptism play after the fact they had already received the Spirit, according to this verse? Nothing at all baptism is the outward appeal to God of the inward repentance that John taught. The CC teaches that all recieve the HS at baptism this verse says its an appeal? I dont see the guarantee part here can you show it to me?

Recieving the Holy Spirit is insufficient to save you. You must still act according to the will of God as derected by the Spirit. We have free will. The Spirit,while powerful, does not usurp our free will. God wants us to seek him of our own choice…

You certainly have to use for the HS do you? In so much that it gives POWER now that part you understand don’t you.

And yes, I saw how you tried to break baptism apart from the reception of the holy spirit. But you did not accoutn for the fact that you must be born of WATER and Spirit. because water baptism saves. St Peter says that again in the quote above. How can you deny scripture?

You do rather frequently, you deny the HS, you deny that John and Jesus both said the water and Spirit were to different things. You deny that Paul said above that it is not the washing of the body but an apeal a repentant heart and mind that it represents. Water baptisum does not save the baptisum of the HS saves and the 2 are not joined just read your verse again. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience,

The thing that defiles a man comes from his heart no water will clean this. Repentance the inward action a man takes comes first then it manifest in the body producing works, like turning away from sinning. But it all starts in the heart and mind. Only God knows that part no man or priest can administer the HS that is a job and ministry of God Himself. Now catholic priest may think they have this ability and I thank God its not true. Can you imagine some man being able to allow or disallow salvation. A man can only hope to keep himself in check and know his own heart and mind, let alone know the motives of another mans heart. In short men can be fooled and bribed, and be wolfs in sheep’s clothing.

 

[michaelsmth626]

No scripture says that our salvation is secured the moment we recieve Christ as our savior. This is wishful thinking on your part, supported by carefully choosing lines of scripture out of theri original context. Sure the Holy Spirit is the seal of salvation for those that believe, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t lose your salvation. that second part is a wishful extension. The fact is, even St. Paul, as holy as he was, stated that he had to persevere in the Faith to be saved. He says this in multiple epistles. And every epistle has a section on how to lead the Christian life in order to be saved. It is not a one time you are saved event, no matter how much Protestants wish it was.

Your theology renders invalid all moral teaching. it renders love pointless. All it values is Faith and in fact one time, spur of the moment faith. How can you beleive that this is correct, when Jesus made clear that Chrisianity is all about Loving God and Loving your neighbor as yourself. You quote 1Corinthians 12. I suggest you read 1Corinthians 13 and see how Paul values Faith in comparison to Love…

Is it possible for you to keep or apply more than one verse at a time.
When you are born of the Spirit you do as the Spirit calls you how can this not be in love.
It is fullest expression we have of the union between God and our self’s, it is the unification of the expression Bride of Christ.
Are you the expression of 1 Cor 13? The way you speak and the words you use are no different than a non believer. You are in complete disagreement with every thing I quote or say. Including the Holy Spirit and what was taught about it function and meaning.
But if I agree with what the church fathers teach then we are brothers right?
I just cant agree with what the Bible says.

How does it go.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant”
What it means to me is, Listen to the history teachings of the CC fathers not the Bible
reflecting back on all the evidence provided by catholics that would seem to be the message.

 

[LionHeart777]

Michael,

You assume that the ECF’s have one teaching on Baptism and the Apostles and Jesus have another. If you are wrong and they are all in agreement, then to pit them against one another would be a false dichotomy (I think). The ECF’s are not inspired but rather show how the early Christians understood Baptism. The Apostles are who were inspired, the ECF’s help guide us to an orthodox understanding. I’m not sure about what you were saying about who the ECF’s are, they are not just Roman Bishops. They are Bishops, apologists, writers from all over. They are an early witness to early Christianity…that is a fact.

Even though you will probably not listen, I will give you some Scripture (Paul c already pointed out relevant passages.)

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) (biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:5&version=KJV) (accessed 9/ 10/ 09) (emphasis mine)

This is the norm; there are exceptions in Acts (Cornelius’ household for example, and the thief on the cross in the Gospel(s))

If you want to see how a # of ECF’s dealt w/ this verse see here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9410frs.asp

If you want a bunch of evidence from approximately 0-250 A.D. that supports Baptismal Regeneration in general see the attached document “BR” at the very bottom of this post (sorry about the repeats.)

Such teaching is very consistent w/ Peter’s words:

Acts: 2:38

“38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

(biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:38&version=KJV) (9/ 10/ 09)

“21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:” (1 Peter 3:21) (biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:21&version=KJV) (9/ 10/ 09)

“The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than ‘salvation,’ and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than ‘life.’ Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: ‘He saved us by the washing of regeneration?’ Titus 3:5 or from Peter’s statement: ‘The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us?’ 1 Peter 3:21 And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper life, than that which is written: ‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven;’ John 6:51 and ‘The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;’ John 6:51 and ‘Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you?’ John 6:53 If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them.” (newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm) (9/ 10/ 09) (Emphasis mine.)

*Notice 1 Peter 3:21 and Titus 3:5 in the text.