P
paul_c
Guest
Michael,
In your opinion, what does baptism with the holy spirit entail? How does one get baptized with the Holy spirit in your theology?
- Status
In your opinion, what does baptism with the holy spirit entail? How does one get baptized with the Holy spirit in your theology?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
James:
It’s clear you don’t want me asking so many questions, so i won’t ask you any. I’ll just give you the truth that i see:
If the parents of a young girl brought her to a doctor because she had a chronic cough, and the doctor said, “This child is not serious about getting well. She’s coughing way too much!” the parents would have every right to think him an insensitive quack! Well, i’m just as ill, Doctor James, but my illness is not Bronchitis, it’s ignorance. And my symptom is not excessive coughing, but excessive questions. For that’s how a man shows he has the illness of ignorance–by asking too many questions. So i think you might understand, then, when i say i doubt you sincerity, or at least your ability, to cure me.
When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”
On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
(Matthew 9:11-13)
P
Pax
Guest
michaelsmth in Christ,
I read your post and pointed out the error. We are not saying the same thing and we do not agree. You are attempting to separate reception of the Holy Spirit from water baptism and that has been your point all along. That has likewise been your point in this your latest post when you again made reference to “baptism in the Holy Spirit”. You are attempting to say that one is not receiving the Holy Spirit in water baptism and we are arguing against that false assertion. There is no “DUH” in any of this unless you have suddenly and spontaneously changed your view. Mine is a refutation of your on going contention that denies reception of the Holy Spirit in water baptism. If you missed how this was put forth, then please read my post again.
God bless.
P
Pax
Guest
Soc in Christ,
You raise an important point. Peter does not make up the truth and then get it rubber stamped by God. The truth is what it is when it comes to doctrine in matters of faith and morals. The truth is Jesus and the truth comes from the divine source of God. We can only receive, determine, and discern the truth. The Church simply receives protection from teaching falsely in the power to bind and loose.
God bless.
S
SteveGC
Guest
paul, I came down to the computer this morning with this exact question in mind for michael (as I’ve been changing my ways for this thread - and doing more lurking than talking). I think it is precisely the right question to ask at this point.
J
JRKH
Guest
OOOHHHH OOOHHH – Call on me - I know I know - - - -
The answer depends on if you believe in Evolution or strict Creationism
If you believe in Evolution the answer is the egg came first cause Dinosaurs laid eggs. (you didn’t say a chicken egg)
If you are a “Creationist” then the Chicken came first, for God created the animals and THEN they procreated.
Did I get it right??
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
My you are cantakerous aren’t you.I see you’ve never met a philosopher!
I’d like to think you want to help, but some of what you have said has given me cause to doubt. Please tell me why you want to help me.
Why do I want to help you?
That I may imitate God.
That I might help you grow in the Love and Knowledge of God and perhaps even someday you will be able to join us all at the Communion Table to recieve the Real Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ who wishes to come into you Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity.
Also That I might learn from you and others here and thus grow Closer to God myself.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
I’m afraid that you took my post too personally. I was merely using your questioning and our answering and everyones confusion/frustration/impatience/etc to illustrate a point often overlooked by people. That is the point of how an institution as Old as the Catholic Church, founded on the simple premise of Love of God and neighbor, can become so “Wordy” (for lack of a better term). My post was never intended as a slight against you personally. I will admit to it’s being written during a time of great stress and frustration and perhaps some of that came through. If so I apologize.
Of course if the doctor, while trying to treat the little girl, found that she tended to bite the tongue depresser, hold the thermometer over a light when his back was turned, draw pictures on his note pad, and “blow in his stethoscope”, all the while coughing just as much but sniggering as well the Doctor might suspect the little girl was, perhaps, not as sick as she seemed.
Well said Soc,
I hope that, since you recognize that you are sick and have come to us for help, you will consider helping us by sitting still on the examining table and cooperating in the examination and treatment.
Peace
James
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Just taking the opportunity while the thread is still open to add to my citations one that I left out:
regarding my post #820, there should be a citation for the “Doctrinal Index” I used in Jurgens for the attachment named “BR”, and for the Tertullian citation @ the bottom of the post:
*" The Faith of The Early Fathers: Volume 1", Jurgens, William A. The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota:1970. (pg. 427 -specifically “Baptism”, # 836, and possibly more.
This citation I should have used also on posts 1298, 1297 in this thread.
–maybe I am just a wee bit paranoid–still good to cite sources thoroughly
regarding my post #820, there should be a citation for the “Doctrinal Index” I used in Jurgens for the attachment named “BR”, and for the Tertullian citation @ the bottom of the post:
*" The Faith of The Early Fathers: Volume 1", Jurgens, William A. The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota:1970. (pg. 427 -specifically “Baptism”, # 836, and possibly more.
This citation I should have used also on posts 1298, 1297 in this thread.
–maybe I am just a wee bit paranoid–still good to cite sources thoroughly
P
pneuma07
Guest
Soc,
Code:
it's nice you consider reasonable the scenario of the sub-apostolic Church as one which would remain faithful to Jesus message. :)I’d like to try to express some of the difficulties I see in this view.
My judgement on the supposed corruption process should come ultimately by postulating something special ,or even exceptional for myself, possessing today the personal ability to know correctly what was wrong with the preaching and the practice of the sub-apostolic and ancient church. An ability, moreover, that I cannot acknowledge in my contemporary brothers, who generally are no less in error than the early Church was.
This is a kind of approach which I’m unable to accept in any of its versions I have been able to know.
To make my attitude more explicit here, it is that IMHO I should be tought by the leadership of the sub-apostolic Church, selected by the apostles among the first fruits of their work.
In some protestant brothers it looks like I should be their judge , the judge of the best disciples of the Apostles. How on earth can I be that ?
How on earth could I be so overconfident in my personal ability to understand the NT ?
Sometimes they respond: they were just men, after all. Right.
And who am I, BTW ?
Who am I to judge by the Scriptures, ie those books they had started to propose to the believers as faithful and normative witness to Jesus’ message, after learning this message from the very lips and lives of the Apostles’,
those first fruits of the Apostles ?
Am I to believe the Apostles, sent by the Lord to make disciples among the nations, were such a pitiful failure, that their best disciples would start leading the Church astray ?
P
pneuma07
Guest
I think He was speaking to Simon Peter calling him Satan, ie enemy, for the reason I tried to explain in the post you’re answering. Ie that Peter in that moment, because of his sincere love for the Lord, was objectively tempting Him.
Are you figuring out at present that point ? Ie that that incident has nothing to do with Peter, and the apostolic college, being protected from teaching error once in charge of Jesus’ Church.
Agreed I’ll come back to past considerations if they look helpful in our trip.
Bless you
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
LOL! I think that’s the other discussion thread.OOOHHHH OOOHHH – Call on me - I know I know - - - -
The answer depends on if you believe in Evolution or strict Creationism
If you believe in Evolution the answer is the egg came first cause Dinosaurs laid eggs. (you didn’t say a chicken egg)
If you are a “Creationist” then the Chicken came first, for God created the animals and THEN they procreated.
Did I get it right??
Peace
James
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yeah, uncertainty makes me cranky!My you are cantakerous aren’t you.
Sounds good enough to me!
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Thanks for taking my cantankerous rant so graciously! I’ll try to calm down now. (cough!)
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...-Sign_web.jpg?&k=Railroad+Grade+Crossing+Sign
I have to say i’ve been at a loss for words to answer your question, P7. I mean, i feel the same–who am i to judge such great men? But that’s the fix i’m in. Before this train gets to it’s destination, i have to know whether i’m getting off with the rest of you at Parish Junction, or getting a round-trip ticket back to Prodigal City. So i must judge, mustn’t i? If not who they are, i must at least judge what they say to see if it is true. Like it or not, i’ve no choice but to judge!
“But how, Lord?” i pray as i stare out the window of the dining car. Then i see the sign from God pass by–ironic that it really *is *a sign! It’s a railroad crossing sign, bright yellow with two large, black letter Rs. And immediately i’m reminded of the two Rs that have gotten me this far. How could i forget? The first R is reason.“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”
(Isaiah 1:18)
God has given me a part of Himself, i think. For reason is part of what makes Him. Thinking rationally, not irrationally. Thinking logically, not illogically. Thinking soundly, not fallaciously. Thinking like God, not like an unthinking, emotional ape. Reason will guide me, as long as i allow God to reason with me. But how can He reason with me if i don’t hear Him? That’s where the second R comes in.
And this second R is revelation–truth revealed by God Himself. But as you asked, who am i to receive such a prize that i do not deserve? No one. And what have i done to earn it? Nothing. So why do i think God would condescend to give this part of Himself to me as He gave it to those more deserving than myself? Because He says so, when He speaks through James: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. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.
(James 1:5-8)
Seems too good to be true–a nobody like me having the same access to the revealed wisdom of God that a somebody like Peter would have. But that’s what James says, isn’t it? It’s not just the somebodies; it’s the *anybodies *who will receive wisdom from God. Anybody, that is, who meets these conditions:
*]He who knows he is not wise and does not know the truth
*]He who asks for wisdom he knows he does not have and the truth he knows he does not know
*]He who believes God gives such wisdom to those who do not deserve it, for God gives it without finding fault
*]He who does not doubt–not for a moment–that God will not fail to give him the wisdom for which he asks
So it seems to me, P7 that the reason so many Protestants appear to be deceived is that they are into partisan religion. And partisan religion, like partisan politics, does not ask whether the position oneself holds is true. “My religion, right or wrong!” is their motto (though if their religion was wrong, they’d hardly know it). For the religious partisan knows he knows he knows the truth, and know he has no need to ask for wisdom he already knows he knows he knows. So if he is self-deceived, God’s hands are tied to help him, for he does not think to ask God to show him the truth that he already thinks he has!
But the religious philosopher, who knows he is not wise, is in a better position to receive wisdom from God. First, because he feels his lack–like a starving man feels his hunger. He knows nothing except the truth that he knows nothing! He knows he is not wise and desperately seeks relief from his ignorance. So he asks God to show him truth, and God brings people into his life to speak the truth in love to him. And those he meets who are self-deceived and think they have the truth, when they don’t–even they are a help for him. For some of them show him how not to think and how not to be deceived. And others pray earnestly for him a prayer they don’t think to pray for themselves–that God would open his eyes.
So i will really on reason and revelation to decide who i should trust as the religious authority to guide me, P7. For what else can i rely on but the two Rs in that sign from God?
J
JRKH
Guest
Bolded section above - Wonderful !!! This is exactly correct dear Soc. It is only when we can pull away all the “pretensions” that the Truth can come. I think that is what you are saying in the above.
I’m curious Soc, Have you ever heard of G.K. Chesterton?
Peace
James
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Soc,
Let me say BTW that once you are in Paris Junction the travel is far from over. As expressed By JRKH we are here to help both you and ourselves, longing for deeper looks. Personally I have come to the forum in order to learn, and that is what I am doing essentially, even when trying helping the brother who kindly asks for assistance.Code:that's really a nice post IMHO. :)
I do hope you don’t see the world in a black and white dualism, just with wisdom seekers and partisans, and you allow in your picture for many colors…
On the two Rs one could hardly deny you’re speaking about the fundamental tool and object of theology.
Speaking about Revelation you , as in theology differently from philosophy, have as a presupposition Faith.
On reason, or individual judgment, I invite you now to consider post 600.
I observe here that the very fact you are looking for reliable authority, means you appear well beyond the trust-no-man mindset.
On Revelation I guess you share that it was received once and for all, and is essentially linked to the earthly existence of the Incarnated Logos, seen within the history of His people.
I guess THEN I am connected to Revelation, to the Incarnated Logos, precisely through the best disciples of the Apostles and their best disciples. Both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture pass through them, and the NT is, as I said, those books they had started to propose to the believers as faithful and normative witness to Jesus’ message, after learning this message from the very lips and lives of the Apostles’,
And there is just that Gospel delivered by the Apostles, no new one can be accepted in a christian perspective. So, that I like it or not, assisted as I can be in my discernment, I pass through the best disciples of the Apostles to get the message of the Incarnated Logos.
How can I then state In 2009 that there was a collective derailment under their collective guide ?
How can I say, for example, as it was essentially stated by a poster here, that I don’t care that they ie the leadership trained and selected by the apostles or thei immediate successors, believed in regenerative water baptism, throwing against that nothing less than … the whole weight of my individual interpretation of the books they delivered us ?
It is my humble individual judgment, or my humble reason if you prefer, that tells me that the leadership of the early Church had to know better than ….my individual judgment.
As you see, I mind there are fundamental epistemological motivations for that.
Moreover, I tell myself, following James as you propose
*if you have bitter(M) jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15This is not(N) the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual,(O) demonic. 16For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17But(P) the wisdom from above is first pure, then(Q) peaceable, gentle, open to reason,(R) full of mercy and good fruits,(S) impartial and(T) sincere. 18And(U) a harvest of righteousness(V) is sown in peace by those who make peace. *
Bless you
P7
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, i think that’s what i was saying, too. Though i’m sure it’s not an idea that is my own but one that someone has poured into my ears. And i’m not sure who to thank for that bit of wisdom.
Heard of him. What can you tell me about him?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
Well - - - I’m going to be careful about making any recommendations and such-not.
You can read a bit about him HERE
I read his book “Orthodoxy” and it is very good.
ON EWTN there is a program about him called “G.K. Chesterton, The Apostle of Common Sense” which seems to fit him pretty well from what I can see.
Also His approach of questioning and his sense of humor strike me as being somwhat similar to yours. For instance, he once said of himself that he was the most polite man in All of England because when he got up on a bus to give a lady his seat, three ladies could sit down. (he was quite, ummm rotund)
I also post a link to his article "Why I am Catholic" contained on the same site I linked above. I link this simply article simply because it is germain to our spritual quest here at Catholic Answers.
Anyway - take a look and see what you think.
Peace
James
- Status