Reformers:1) SS is right, 2) The Bible is wrong...

[guanophore]

The Christian Church did not have the authority, or the right, to decide Old Testament Cannon. The Old Testament is not a Christian collection, it is a Jewish collection. Thus, your premise question is erroneous.

No, Draw, your conclusion is erroneous. Jesus transferred the Seat of Moses (teaching authority) from the Pharisees to the Apostles. He commissioned them to “teach all things” that He had commanded. Jesus used the Septuagint, so the Apostles adopted it. If the Apostles did not have this authority, then nothing they taught from the “scriptures” would be accurate, since they would not know which collection was authoritative.

Do you believe that Jesus meant what He said when He said that no one comes to the father but by me? Do you also believe that Mary is the mediatrix of salvation? These two statements are diametrically opposed and cannot both be true.

Both statements are true. Neither is related to the topic.

What makes sense is that God wanted those books, which while not Cannon and not of the same weight as Cannon, preserved and the only way to preserve them in the 4th century was to have man view them as Cannon.

It is canon, not cannon. We have thousands of books that were preserved from that time period, and before. It is ridiculous to assert that the only way a book could be preserved was for them to be considerd canon.

However, later, once man had developed more and gained a better understanding and ability to preserve ancient texts, those books need not be viewed as Cannon to be preserved.

So, you know more than the Apostles now? You are able to better understand which collection Jesus used?

Similar to the way the Catholic Church says it can refine beliefs but not change them.

No, not similar at all. Catholics do not claim that they have a better understanding of what God revealed to the Apostles than Jesus.

It does when you realize that the Catholic Church has never once admitted error – not even for the crusades or the inquisition.

This is also off the topic. The Catholic Church cannot make errors. Jesus is her Head. He is divine. He does not “err”.

It makes more sense than that the “One and only Christian Church” would turn its back on widely accepted Jewish tradition of what is (and is not) Cannon.

Salvation is of the Jews, Draw. The Apostles used the Jewish Septuagint.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It is very apparent that you’ve never read the things Martin Luther wrote. If you’re going to make statements like this you should really read his large and small catechisms first. Just as Catholics consistently tell protestants to read the CCC, shouldn’t Catholics take their own advice?

I wish you luck banging your head against that wall . Unfortunately,when children are fed a​

pack of lies about “outsiders” from their earliest years, lies about Catholics/Protestants/Orthodox Christians/[insert name of group] become impossible to uproot.

Teachers who fill the heads of children with fictions and untruths and calumnies are a menace to society - they should be banged up for life, without prospect of parole.

 

[guanophore]

You mean like the Small Catechism?

Originally Posted by Martin Luther
The deplorable, miserable condition which I discovered lately when I, too, was a visitor, has forced and urged me to prepare [publish] this Catechism, or Christian doctrine, in this small, plain, simple form…

…But those who are unwilling to learn it should be told that they deny Christ and are no Christians, neither should they be admitted to the Sacrament, accepted as sponsors at baptism, nor exercise any part of Christian liberty, but should simply be turned back to the Pope and his officials, yea, to the devil himself.

Sounds like he was OK with them.

Luther is saying that a person who is unwilling to learn his catechism should not be considered a Christian, and that the Pope, Catholic officials, and the devil all belong in the camp of those who are not to be admitted as Christian.

 

[guanophore]

2 Tim 3:16 states that it is the very word of God and is given by God to instruct us in doctrine and discipline. There is no higher authority than God.

No, kc, it states nothing of the kind.

2 Tim 3:15-4:1
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

What it says is that scripture is profitable. There is nothing in this vers about scripture having authority over anything, or anyone. In fact, scripture cannot have “authority” because holding authority requires intellect, will, and the ability to take responsibility. Scripture does not have any of these qualities. They are unique to persons.

Of course scripture is profitable, but this verse does NOT say “all I need” is scripture. If that were true, Jesus would not have established a Church for the purpose. These activities that are described here are all functions of PERSONS, not books, however holy.

The teaching of sound doctrine is the duty of the Bishop.

1 Tim 1:3-4
3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,
The Apostles has ordained Timothy, and is instructing him because to the Bishop is entrusted the Apostolic Authority to teach the correct doctrine.

To another Bishop the Apostle writes:

Titus 2:15

15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
It is to persons that the authority is given to reprove and instruct in right doctrine.

The Apostle explains why God gave authority to the Magesterium(teaching authority of the Church). It is the duty of these PERSONS to equip the saints:

Eph 4:11-15
11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

What are the tasks of these PERSONS?

It is their duty to equip the saints. This means reprove, correct, and instruct. The Holy Scriptures are profitable in the carrying out of these duties. Scripture is not a substitute for the Church, as the Reformers have tried to claim. Even Scripture itself refutes this fact.

If 2 Tim 3:15-4:1 is your “proof text” that Scripture is the final authority, you are in some deep trouble. “Profitable” does not equate to “final authority”.

 

[guanophore]

Doesn't have to.  The fact that it doesn't say "all scripture and so and so is God-breathed", but only "all scripture" means scripture alone.

No, kc. This is not the case. The Church is also God breathed:

John 20:22-23
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

God has inspired many things. Scripture is unique among them, but it is not “alone” of the inspired works of God. There is nothing in scripture that instructs you to read it this way, either. You are applying an extrabiblical principle here.

Inasmuch as it is into submission and obedience to scripture, sure.

This is probably one of the major errors of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. One cannot be under the “submission and obedience” of Scripture because scripture does not weild authority, becuase the holy writings do not posess the qualities required of authority. Only persons can make decisions, have others subject to them, and command obedience. Such activities imply that there are consequences to one’s actions. Scripture does not enforce consequences. People do.

The fact that the Apostle Paul referred to his own New Testament Epistles as God-breathed scripture aside, you’re overlooking one very important thing: the verse very clearly says “all scripture” so in order for your claim to be true, you have to deny that the New Testament is the word of God.

No, kc, you are making another mistake. Paul was writing a letter at the time. When he referenced the “Scripture” he was referring to the Septuagint.

And I disagree.

That is your perogative. Just so long as you know it is coming from your own will and mind, and not the Holy Writings.

Again, I disagree. Paul specifically says “ALL scripture”, not merely “all scriptures written up to a certain point”.

Paul was referring to the Septuagint.

I disagree. I’ve already shown scripture that supports it. But I do understand that, as a Catholic, you’re bound to deny that.

No, kc, you have not shown any scripture that supports the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. What you have shown is a verse written by a Catholic, to Catholics that says Scriputre is PROFITABLE, which it certainly IS.

Yes, as Catholics we are bound to reject anything such as this that constitutes a “different gospel” than the one committed to us by our Apostles.

Eph 3:5-6
it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

 

[guanophore]

You speak about Paul but infact he is a fine example that Jesus elects and baptizes in the Holy Spirit and not the church or body of believers.

I agree, he is a fine example. However there is no “and not” as you suggest. There is no separation between Christ and His Body, the Church. Paul was sent by Jesus to the Church, and Jesus sent an ordained person from the Church to Paul. Christ chooses to work through the Church.

Paul was called and commissioned by Jesus before the actions taken after the fact, like being baptized by Ananius, or receiving approval from the other apostles. His election and mission were secured at the moment of his conversion, the following formalities that are held up as evidence for church authority are of no value in light of Christs choosing.

If that were true, Jesus would not have gone to such trouble to complete these “evidences” would He? He did not have to send Paul to Ananias for baptism. He did not have to work through Ananias to lay hands upon Paul for healing. Jesus could have taken the scales off without any people. He chose to work through those that were ordained by the Apostles.

That I believe is the posters implication. The church does not call and appoint teachers and prophets Jesus does.

Both things are true. There is no need or justification to separate them. Jesus is One with His Body, the Church. This is demonstrated more in the account of Paul than anywhere.

The greatest speaker, teacher of the new testament did not spend three years walking and listening to Jesus personally, he didn’t have the first communion with Him, he did not receive the Spirit at Pentecost, but yet he possessed it, in complete fullness.

Actually, he did!

Gal 1:16-18
I did not confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.

Paul communed in the desert of Arabia for three years with the risen Christ.

Jesus gave Paul communion through the Church, as well as mystically. I agree that Paul also had the fullness of Pentecost, of course, which he received when Ananias laid hands upon him, and he was baptized by water and Spirit.

I doubt the apostles could have added to his knowledge of the scriptures, but the power of the Spirit completely changed everything he ever thought he knew the Torah said.

They all seemed to have no small amout of debate over them.

So if God can call to those outside the body of believers then, as He did Paul why can’t this happen everywhere or anywhere today?

Well, this question does not make any sense. All those who are not members of His Body are called while they are outside of it.

The popular world view today is that Christians are narrow minded, by believing that Jesus is the only way to establish a relationship with God, Catholics take it another step, that this Jesus can only be found threw their church. The conversion of Paul is a fine example of, this may not be the case.

I think you chose a poor example. If the scriptures were not so clear in the case of Paul being sent immediately and directly to the Church for the sacraments, maybe you would have a case.

Jesus built a Church. He works through His church to bring salvation to the world. Since there is no salvation outside Him, and He is One with His Body, the Church, there is no salvation outside the Church. However, I can’t see what this has to do with the topic.

The Apostles and Jesus pointed to the OT teachings to teach the NT. Can you show me apostle NT teaching that is not found in the OT or spoken by Jesus Himself?

There are many references in the NT to the Deutuerocanon, which Protestants deny is part of the OT. There are also references that are from Sacred Tradition, and not found in scripture. The reference of Jesus to the Seat of Moses is one.

Another reference to Sacred Tradition is

2 Tim 3:7-9
who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 8 As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; 9 but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

We find the story in the OT, but not the names of the people.

If you can then there may be evidence to support your theory about oral traditions.

The greatest testimony to Sacred Tradition is Jesus’ presence in the temple for the feast of Lights. This feast, accounted in the books of Macabees, was not one of the observances of Moses, but part of Jewish Sacred Tradition. If Jesus did not consider it valid, I doubt He would have showed up.

Paul’s quote of Christ “it is better to give than receive” is also not found anywhere in the Gospel accounts.

The Apostles did not separate the Word of God that came by mouth from that which came by letter:

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

1 Thess 2:13

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

The Word of God at work in the Church did not suddenly cease to be present or fail to be protected by the HS just because some of it was written.

 

[Drawmack]

Hello, Im Frankie . I have done study on this issue and can tell you that the books that Luther took out originally while making his German translation was Hebrew,James, Jude, Revelations,Judith,parts of Esther and Daniel, Sirach, Baruch,1st and 2nd maccabee ,Wisdom,Tobit,. These books all interfered with the myth of SOLO FIDE(by faith alone)These books interfered with his agenda .Also , (you said you were not interested but I thought you might like to know at least where it came from )in Romans 3:28 is where it says “we are saved by faith apart from the works of the law(Jewish Law.)” Luther added the word “alone”
in between the words faith and apart, adding a whole knew meaning to the verse.I have underlined specific verses in each of the above books that could the reasoning for his illimanation of these books.
God Bless

If you’ve done research then you can surely provide sources for these claims.

 

[guanophore]

Second, Paul acknowledged that his current and previous epistles were already considered scripture.

Really? Where is that?

First, it doesn’t matter what Paul’s definition was. It was the Holy Spirit who inspired him, so it is the Holy Spirit’s definition and the Holy Spirit most definitely does know what is and is not scripture.

I think both things are true. Jesus gave teh HS to the Church, and promised that the Church would be led “into all Truth”. The HS fulfilled this mission by guiding the Church to identify which writings belonged in the canon of scripture.

Second, again, Paul stated that his current and previous epistles were already to be considered inspired scripture.

Looking forward to those references.

When did I ever deny that Paul was talking about profitability???

You gave his verse on profitablity and said it meant “Sola Scriptura”. Then you said it meant 'scripture alone" which is patently false. There are many other things that are profitable in spiritual development. Scripture is unique among them, but not “alone”.

Simple for two reasons:

The first is that the Greek uses the singular article.

The second is that the fact that he specified scripture eliminates all other sources.

No, kc, this is not a fact. This is an opinion, and it is contrary to what the Apostles believed and taught. For example:

Titus 3:8
I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.

Doing good deeds is also profitable for spiritual growth.

The practice of virtues is also profitable:

2 Peter 1:4-8
5 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If we do these things, we will be effective and fruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.

Your assertion that Scripture alone is profitable for spiritual growth is not biblical!

Obedience to our leaders is also profitable:

Heb 13:17

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

You seem to believe that Scripture keeps watch over our souls, to the exclusion of those shepherds appointed by God.

And I believe that it is you who is arguing with the text of scripture.

No, kc, scripture cannot engage in “arguement”. This is another characteristic of persons that Scripture does not possess. What we are arguing with is your interpretation of scripture. We are arguing because your ideas represent a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

1 Peter 3:15-16. Peter seems to believe Paul’s epistles are scripture. "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

He did indeed, and it would do you well to heed Peters warning here. To interpret them apart from the Church to and about whom they were written is very dangerous.

Acts 15:22-32 - states that Paul’s epistle is considered on a par with scripture.

No, kc. This passages has nothing to do with anything Paul wrote.

1 Thess 2:13 - Paul states that the epistles are scripture

Yes, and it also says that the traditions delivered by word of mouth are equal to it.

Doesn’t matter what I’d like it to say. Only matters what it says.

I agree, however the problem here is that you are interpreting it and you believe it says something different than what the Apostles believed and taught.

It speaks specifically of scripture.

Indeed it does! And Scripture is profitable. It is not “sola”.

When I meet one, I’ll let you know.

You have met them, and they are us! I think you might be in over your head.

Why are you here?

It certainly doesn’t appear that you have.

It is good that you can see that we interpret scripture differently than you. We interpret through the lens of sacred tradition. We understand what is written in the light of what the Apostles committed to the Church. We have obeyed the commandment to keep the traditions, both by word of mouth, and in writing.

The Reformers separated themselves from the Apostolic Succession, and their offspring no longer have or keep the Traditions. They understand Scripture in the light of innovative theologies developed 1600 years after the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

I guess I’ve met my first catholic that does not believe the catholic church is the sole deposit of faith. quote - Oral Tradition is the understanding of the teachings of the apostles.

No, probably not. Jesus only made one (sole) deposit, and it was made to His Church. He charged the Apostles with the responsiblity to guard it, and they passed this charge on to their successors, the bishops.

My challenge was for you to provide evidence of NT teachings that can not be found in the OT or spoken of by Jesus. Find a teaching that does not have another testimony that supports it.

I guess I don’t understand the need for this. Why would you want to separate the written from the oral word? Sacred Tradition has to do with HOW we understand what is written. We read and interpret it in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught.

For example Peter becoming the rock on which the church is founded, the rock is always referring to Jesus threw out the entire bible. Nothing supports the church being built on anything but Christ the Rock? It’s entirely out of context with the rest of scripture.

Looks like you have some history reading to do. When you do so, you will realize that the early fathers understood that Peter was the Rock. Jesus did not rename him to “Rock” for no reason. It is false that there is no context. Jesus is clear about the need to built the house on Rock. Paul also is clear about the foundation of the church:

Eph 2:19-22
…the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

It seems that separating the dividing is the fruit of the Reformation. However, Jesus is all about unity. He grafted Peter into His own rockness, so that Peter could become part of the foundation of His household, the Church. This foundation is all connected inseparably to Christ. If there was anyone who needed to be transformed from sand into Rock, it was Peter!

SS certainly doesn’t enforce catholic doctrine, its no wonder then catholics teach against it.

Not supporting Catholic doctrine was the root cause for the need to invent the doctrine of sola scriptura. You are right, we must oppose it, as it is our duty and obligation to refute heresies.

 

[Drawmack]

I think you chose a poor example. If the scriptures were not so clear in the case of Paul being sent immediately and directly to the Church for the sacraments, maybe you would have a case.

Okay, I think that this phrase really gets to the crux of the issue. After all, Sola Scriptura is really a response to tradition.

If either of these premises are mistaken please correct me, but I believe that the Catholic Church teaches:

1. The sacraments were instituted by Christ.
2. There are seven sacraments: Baptism, Eucharist, Reconciliation (penance), Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, Anointing of the Sick (last rites).

Could someone please tell me how and when and how (with references) Jesus instituted Confirmation and the Anointing of the Sick?

Could someone tell me why there are seven sacraments when Jerome only used the word to refer to two of the sacraments?

 

[guanophore]

OK. What “outside authority” is greater than the word of God?

What makes Scripture profitable and authoritative is being handled by those in authority. Jesus appointed His Apostles.

Matt 28:18 - Mark 1:1
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “**All authority **in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

He sent them with His own authority to teach and make disciples. Whenever you see a “therefore” in scripture, it is helpful to look and see what it is “there for”. In this case, the context shows us that the authority of the Apostles is based upon Christ’s authority.

The Apostles passed this on to their successors, and instructed them to teach with authority:

Titus 2:15
15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

The authority given by Christ to the ordained ministers of the Church is not “greater”. The Scriptures are profitable, and are to be used together by those given authority so they can fulfill their job to equip the saints.

 

[michaelsmth626]

I agree, he is a fine example. However there is no “and not” as you suggest. There is no separation between Christ and His Body, the Church. Paul was sent by Jesus to the Church, and Jesus sent an ordained person from the Church to Paul. Christ chooses to work through the Church.

Jesus never instructed Ananias to do anything but restore Pauls vision

If that were true, Jesus would not have gone to such trouble to complete these “evidences” would He? He did not have to send Paul to Ananias for baptism. He did not have to work through Ananias to lay hands upon Paul for healing. Jesus could have taken the scales off without any people. He chose to work through those that were ordained by the Apostles.

I dont dispute Jesus presenting Paul to the Church I have issue with the teaching that Ananias had something to do with it. Other than the laying of hands to restore Pauls vision.

Both things are true. There is no need or justification to separate them. Jesus is One with His Body, the Church. This is demonstrated more in the account of Paul than anywhere.

If you agree then why claim Ananias played a part in the baptismal or the recieving of the Spirit.

Actually, he did!

Gal 1:16-18
I did not confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.

Paul communed in the desert of Arabia for three years with the risen Christ.

Jesus gave Paul communion through the Church, as well as mystically. I agree that Paul also had the fullness of Pentecost, of course, which he received when Ananias laid hands upon him, and he was baptized by water and Spirit.

Do you have scripture to support that highlighted notion. I dont see it acts 9.

Well, this question does not make any sense. All those who are not members of His Body are called while they are outside of it.

Who did Paul here the message from that converted him. It was Jesus, not a Spirit driven member of the church. No man converted Paul the resurrected Jesus did.

I think you chose a poor example. If the scriptures were not so clear in the case of Paul being sent immediately and directly to the Church for the sacraments, maybe you would have a case.

So where is your case in scripture that he was hurried off in the pope mobile to receive the sacraments?

There are many references in the NT to the Deutuerocanon, which Protestants deny is part of the OT. There are also references that are from Sacred Tradition, and not found in scripture. The reference of Jesus to the Seat of Moses is one.

Another reference to Sacred Tradition is

2 Tim 3:7-9
who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 8 As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; 9 but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

We find the story in the OT, but not the names of the people.

I take that to be a no.

The greatest testimony to Sacred Tradition is Jesus’ presence in the temple for the feast of Lights. This feast, accounted in the books of Macabees, was not one of the observances of Moses, but part of Jewish Sacred Tradition. If Jesus did not consider it valid, I doubt He would have showed up.

The Jews of the time didn’t even accept the Macabees as cannon.

Paul’s quote of Christ “it is better to give than receive” is also not found anywhere in the Gospel accounts.

Would being a servant as opposed to being served have the same meaning. Jesus taught the Apostles that when He washed their feet. It is better to serve than be served or better to give than receive?

The Apostles did not separate the Word of God that came by mouth from that which came by letter:

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

It implies the 2 are the same.

 

[guanophore]

Your right I dont believe it. You are making a case that Jesus had no influence on Paul, that Pauls ministry was the result of the apostles actions.

Codswallop. No one here has asserted any such thing. All we are saying is that Paul did not function in a vaccuum apart from the Church, and the Apostolic Succession. Pauls actions were not separate from the Church, but part of it.

Here is an article in Acts that’s says that the Spirit was given to the gentiles by hearing the words spoken, not by baptism that also came after the fact.

Both things are true. The Spirit came during preaching, baptism, the laying on of hands, and other ways.

It would seem that some catholic teachings ignore the obvious. If this is true you ether have to redefine your your understanding of the way the Holy Spirit is given or ignore the first instance of it being sent to the gentiles. The official teaching chooses the later.

We do not limit God. We know that the HS also works through inanimate objects, which is the whole theology underlying sacred items.

It looks like the baptismal in water to receive the Spirit is not true. Water baptizum is a sign of repentance, something the uncircumcised had already done, repented.

It may look like that to you, but that is not what the Apostles believed and taught. However, why not take that over to the baptism thread? It is off topic here.

**

michaelsmth626:
To quote Peter, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus. Or more defined, repent and receive the baptismal of Jesus, the Holy Spirit.**

The Apostles never separated the water from the HS. This did not happen until about 100 years ago when American Fundamentalist took an extreme anti-sacramental tone.

 

[michaelsmth626]

Lets take a look at what it really says and what you are implying it says.

10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and to him the Lord said in a vision, “Ananias.”
And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
11 So the Lord said to him, “Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus, for behold, he is praying. 12 And in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight.”

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.

17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.

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?

“Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

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.

18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.

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.

 

[guanophore]

  the Spirit will lead you into all understanding. Its the Spirit that knits the whole body together not the church. Without the HS their would be no NT church.

Here is that “and not” again. Yes, the spirit is the one that knits. But the HS is not separate from the Church. The whole body are members one of another. The HS is the Soul of the Church, and Christ is her Head. He identifies HImself completely with His Holy Bride.

  Those that have received the HS are the church and I dont believe that is a market the catholics have cornered.

The Catholic Church does not claim to. It seems that you have been grossly misinformed about what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. How did that happen?

As I have pointed out catholic teachings dont agree with SS. Are you worried that some teach false doctrine?

It would be more appropriate to say that SS does not agree with the TEachings of the Apostles guarded by the Church. Of course the Church is worried that some teach false doctrine! This concern of the church has demonstrated itself to be true, and the current state of disunity has justified the concerns of the magesterium about private interpretation.

I'm not because the truth is able to be found.

I agree, but some people have a hard time.

I’m not worried about Gods ability to know mens hearts and draw them to Himself ether. As for yourself you sound like your dependent on men and their ability to persuade others you are right.

Jesus has chosen to work through people.

43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, **whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”**

Pretty simple message that can be so over complicated by men, dont you think

I do! It is the nature of that believing that may differ. For Catholics, those who believe in Him are obedient to Him. The Apostles also taught that we receive the remission of sins in baptism, therefore, we do not separate saving faith from baptism, and the washing of regeneration.

I cannot figure out what any of this has to do with the topic, except that you are claiming that the CC “doesn’t agree with SS”. Why would the CC embrace an non-biblical teaching that was invented 1600 years after the Apostles?

 

[SteveGC]

Could someone please tell me how and when and how (with references) Jesus instituted Confirmation and the Anointing of the Sick?

Sure. Confirmation. and Anointing of the Sick

 

[SimonArizona]

Unless a man be born of water and spirit.-Jesus

 

[SteveGC]

Nothing here about baptizing him,

How is it we are delving into baptism on a thread focusing on Sola Scriptura and Luther? There is a plethora of information on this site for you to absorb which will readily provide you with the knowledge that water baptism is a necessary application of the Spirit of God within the believer. Perhaps we can continue to strive to keep the focus of the thread where the OP wants it to be.

Blessings.

 

[michaelsmth626]

Codswallop. No one here has asserted any such thing. All we are saying is that Paul did not function in a vaccuum apart from the Church, and the Apostolic Succession. Pauls actions were not separate from the Church, but part of it.

Both things are true. The Spirit came during preaching, baptism, the laying on of hands, and other ways.

We do not limit God. We know that the HS also works through inanimate objects, which is the whole theology underlying sacred items.

It may look like that to you, but that is not what the Apostles believed and taught. However, why not take that over to the baptism thread? It is off topic here.

**

The Apostles never separated the water from the HS. This did not happen until about 100 years ago when American Fundamentalist took an extreme anti-sacramental tone.**

This has everything to do with SS as you name it.

Mark 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5 Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair and with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying, “There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. 8 I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Two types of Baptism plan and simple. One in water for repentance and on of the Spirit that is administered by Jesus.

Act chapter 10 says that the first instance of the HS going to the uncircumcised did not happen with a water baptismal. It was the result of hearing the word. If you have a problem with the 2 scriptural references take it up with the author. I just read it. The baptism of Jesus is the receiving of the Holy Spirit it has nothing to do with water sprinkling of immersion. If we see an instance in scripture where the HS is given by simply hearing the word we or I apply that truth when reading scripture, I dont ignore it and pretend it didn’t happen. If you look that message is in the New and Old Testaments both that by believing in Him you shall be saved. By believing the words spoken about Jesus you will be saved. It never list the 7 sacraments as a necessity. They are a nice offering to God but are not necessitated in scripture to be saved, born again, enter the kingdom, son of God what ever you like to call it.

 

[SimonArizona]

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,

Act 8:15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,

Act 8:16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. -ESV