Way of the Master

[deanarrca]

First of all, you’ve got to remember that they’re Christians so they don’t determine doctrine by the “clear teaching of the early church”, but by what the Bible says.

Second, they’re very clear that baptism is a symbolic act by which the believer demonstrates that he is crucified with Christ and raised to new life in Him, so it looks like they understand it pretty well.

Note: That first satement sounds accusatory. It comes across almost as if you're saying they're Christian and the Catholics here may not be. (Reading between the lines there and feeling the tone of the statement- I could be wrong)

First off when referring to the early Church we are talking about the Early Church. Churches founded by the Apostles. We are talking about early Christians who knew the Apostles first hand and hobbed nobbed with them.

They got the teachings from the horses mouth. There are very Early Church documents describing what these early Christian were doing and very well had defined how the early church interpreted many things such as baptismal regeneration, the eucharist etc. Documents written about church life say around 90 ad. before the death of the last Apostle.

No the Bible was not around then in the form we have today, and wouldn’t be for another 400 years. The early church got their intsruction directly from the Apostles themselves. it was this Early Church that preseved the epsitles and writings that would later be canonized in the Bible. Without the Early Church there would have never eventually, 1500 years later, be the reformation. Actually the way you interpret “Born Again” as an emotional and purely symbolic experience was not known for close to the first 1800 years of all Christianity. Even most of the denominations that came out of the reformation did not teach it.

Baptismal regeneration was taught from the earliest times and is very Biblical. However that would take us off topic and should be addressed in another thread.

Suffice it to say one of the earliest accounts is Peter Sermon in Acts. Surely here Peter preached the Gospel 3000 people cam to know Christ and came into the church-

Acts 2:14-42 No mention of your version of the “Born Again Experience” surely if this was so important it would have been part of Peters sermon. Peter prerached baptismal regeneration.

• 37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
  38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.*

And to bring this around to topic is seems not to be what the Masters Way are preaching. It certainly is not how Peter did it.

 

[heisenburg]

why is it that everyone, protestant and catholic alike, agree that we can all come to different understandings of scripture, acknowledge this is a problem, especially in protestant churches.

However…

When a Catholic acknowledges that his own PERSONAL understanding could be flawed,we are criticized for looking at what the first Christians believed to help us Understand scripture

However, When a protestant, who claims to be following what the original Christians believe, is questioned and are told that is not what the first Christians taught, they come back with… “I don’t care what the first Christians taught, all I need is the bible”

You MUST acknowledge if you are honest that your personal understanding could be off. Do you a) say well, I need to dig and see what those closest to the apostles taught, even though it isn’t in the bible, or do you 2) say my understanding is better than yours because I say so. Don’t confuse me with what may or may not be history…

On Whose authority is it that you can say your understanding is better than mine?

Do you want us catholics to follow what the first Christians taught or not?

Sad observation…

In Christ

 

[brosam]

Too bad that that doctrine of “the Bible alone” isn’t even taught in the Bible.

I agree. Who said it is?

Again, it’s too bad that that is not a scriptural belief.

Not according to your scriptures, perhaps, but according to the Bible.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day…

Which is two more times than your average Roman Catholic.

I don’t know. Why don’t you explain how they can believe that the Bible is the sole authority for their belief and practice when that is nowhere found in the Bible? Catholics don’t fall for that and never have.

Neither do Christians.

BTW, the “silly” quote is from someone who did both, and your analogy is specious at best.It is not the job of believers to condemn…conviction of sins is the work of the Holy Spirit

I agree. That’s why we dont condemn.

According to you.

According to the Bible.

However, I suspect that St. Francis of Assisi has won more souls to Christ, both in person and in his writings that have come down to us, than most n-Cs ever will, and will continue to until the Lord returns.

Honestly? I really couldn’t care less what Frank did.

My obligation is to be faithful to the word of God and that means to proclaim the Gospel.

“The Christian Gospel” doesn’t “disagree(s) with the Bible”, the n-C gospel does.

I agree. The Christian Gospel doesn’t disagree with the Bible. Therefore, your claim is false.Saved?

 

[brosam]

First off when referring to the early Church we are talking about the Early Church. Churches founded by the Apostles. We are talking about early Christians who knew the Apostles first hand and hobbed nobbed with them.

They got the teachings from the horses mouth.

I see. So then, anything they say must be on a par with scripture?

There are very Early Church documents describing what these early Christian were doing and very well had defined how the early church interpreted many things such as baptismal regeneration, the eucharist etc. Documents written about church life say around 90 ad. before the death of the last Apostle.

So, are we to determine doctrine by “very early church documents”? Or by what the word of God says?

No the Bible was not around then in the form we have today, and wouldn’t be for another 400 years. The early church got their intsruction directly from the Apostles themselves.

Actually, the epistles that would make up the NT were in wide circulation, and they already had the OT.

Actually the way you interpret “Born Again” as an emotional and purely symbolic experience was not known for close to the first 1800 years of all Christianity. Even most of the denominations that came out of the reformation did not teach it.

Actually, Jesus taught it.

Baptismal regeneration was taught from the earliest times and is very Biblical. However that would take us off topic and should be addressed in another thread.

I see. I don’t blame you. I wouldn’t want the task of trying to insert baptismal regeneration in to the Bible, either.

Acts 2:14-42 No mention of your version of the “Born Again Experience” surely if this was so important it would have been part of Peters sermon. Peter prerached baptismal regeneration.

By your logic, baptism, Purgatory, praying to dead people, the inerrancy of the pope, the necessity of aligning oneself with Rome and it’s rituals for salvation must not be Biblical, either. Peter didn’t say anything about them.

38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I thought you just said Peter didn’t say anything about being born again?

And to bring this around to topic is seems not to be what the Masters Way are preaching. It certainly is not how Peter did it.

And therein lies the problem. You’re looking to Peter as your master because you believe the Roman Catholic tale that Jesus founded the church on him, and you must give allegience to your church at all costs.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Which is two more times than your average Roman Catholic.

Just a friendly warning - statements like this could quickly get you banned from this forum. If you believe Catholics are so terribly wrong, why are you here? Are you hoping to win converts like me back to the Baptist Church? As Joseph asked Mrs Potiphar, “how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” Because I assure you it would be a GRAVE sin for me to turn my back on what God has called me to. I was earnestly seeking the Truth when God called me to the Catholic Church. I was fervently praying for direction and God. Told. Me. what to do. **It couldn’t have been clearer if I’d had an actual burning bush. **

My problem with Way of the Master is that they truly believe that Catholics are dumb, lost sheep who never read or study the Bible on their own. I can testify that that is patently untrue. They cut away at the Gospel and narrow it down to a one-time decision, which directly contradicts what Jesus says about picking up our cross DAILY to follow Him. Salvation isn’t a one-time done deal, it is a life-long process. Anyone who says differently is preaching another Gospel.

 

[brosam]

Just a friendly warning - statements like this could quickly get you banned from this forum.

I’ll take my chances.

If you believe Catholics are so terribly wrong, why are you here?

If I have to put up with twenty spam emails a day asking me for money, I’ve earned the right to be here.

My problem with Way of the Master is that they truly believe that Catholics are dumb, lost sheep who never read or study the Bible on their own.

If you’re relying on any organization to save you, then you are lost. As for not reading the Bible, I’ve got to be honest, I’ve only been here a couple of days and I’ve heard some truly horrifically Unbiblical things from the Roman Catholics here.

I can testify that that is patently untrue.

Based on my experience here and with Roman Catholics in real life, I can testify that it is.

They cut away at the Gospel and narrow it down to a one-time decision, which directly contradicts what Jesus says about picking up our cross DAILY to follow Him. Salvation isn’t a one-time done deal, it is a life-long process. Anyone who says differently is preaching another Gospel.

OK. Show me how repentance and faith in Christ and His atonement on the cross is “another Gospel” and be sure to use the Bible, that you claim to know so well.

 

[heisenburg]

Brosam…

Where is the love Christ demands…

You seem terribly judgmental, and this is NOT what Christ asks of us… Your disagreements with the Church are that… disagreements… But you can post your claim in such a way that doesn’t come off as arrogant and self righteous. This is how your posts have been coming off…

If this is not the intent, then all I ask is please proof your posts more carefully and think about how it could come off…

I’m not saying sugar coat, I’m saying there are ways to voice concerns without being disrespectful

In Christ

 

[brosam]

Brosam…

Where is the love Christ demands…

You seem terribly judgmental

Really? Who have I judged? Do I really need to remind you of some of the terrible things that so many of your fellow “one true church”-ers have said to me here?

I’ve been a regular David Niven compared to the way you’ve all treated me.

 

[heisenburg]

and if you stay around long enough, you will note we call out catholics as well when they get judgmental…

May your journey to Christ be blessed

 

[Pixie_Dust]

If you’re relying on any organization to save you, then you are lost. As for not reading the Bible, I’ve got to be honest, I’ve only been here a couple of days and I’ve heard some truly horrifically Unbiblical things from the Roman Catholics here.

Well, I don’t recall saying that I was relying on an organization to save me, so I’m not sure why you felt led to say that. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour.

If something seems unbiblical to you, do you suppose there’s any chance it might just be opposed to your personal interpretation?

Based on my experience here and with Roman Catholics in real life, I can testify that it is.

Did you miss where I said I was a convert? I was a staunch Baptist for most of the last 15 years. Yes, indeed, there are some ignorant Catholics out there. I also know from experience with teaching Jr/Sr High Sunday School at the Baptist church that there are some equally ignorant Baptists.

OK. Show me how repentance and faith in Christ and His atonement on the cross is “another Gospel” and be sure to use the Bible, that you claim to know so well.

I really wish you would stop twisting what I say. If you interpret the Bible the way you interpret my posts, it’s no wonder you think the Catholic Church is “unbiblical.”

I said that salvation was not a one-time done deal. The Bible says so, too.

Jesus himself tells us, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46)

“See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off” (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21)

The Bible says I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).

For more information, click here.

 

[deanarrca]

First of all How do you guys do the multiple guote thingy I tried and can’t figure out how to do it.

I see. So then, anything they say must be on a par with scripture?

It shows how they interpreted Scripture back then during the time of the Apostles. And if you study everything they taught is in perfect unison with the scriptures.

So, are we to determine doctrine by “very early church documents”? Or by what the word of God says?

Definitely by the Word of God. The early church is in perfect agreement with the word of God in the Bible. However you make the faulty assumption that your private interpretation is infallible. That has led to 30000+ protestant denominations. Which one is rightfully dividing the word of truth?
2Peter 1:20
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,…
2Peter 3:16
s also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Actually, the epistles that would make up the NT were in wide circulation, and they already had the OT.

***Yes And they were in the hands of who? The Early Church. That was rightfully dividing the word of truth. The Apostles were there to correct the Early churches and Christians if they weren’t interpreting things correctly. Most of the epistles were written to the churches to correct misunderstandings about scripture and what was being taught.

---

Actually, Jesus taught it. (referring to being Born Again)

That is true but not in the way you are interpreting it.

By your logic, baptism, Purgatory, praying to dead people, the inerrancy of the pope, the necessity of aligning oneself with Rome and it’s rituals for salvation must not be Biblical, either. Peter didn’t say anything about them.

Actually he did mention Baptism in his Sermon. The rest can be Biblically supported (but would all take there own thread) The other things mentioned were not necessary at that point for conversion, being added to the Church, Forgiveness of sins or as you would say being “saved”.

I thought you just said Peter didn’t say anything about being born again?

A***gain he did, just not as you interpret it. PS: where do you get your interpretation- Your Pastor, your Church, the writings of Scoffield, DL Moody. (You see nobody reads the Bible completely uninfluenced)

---

And therein lies the problem. You’re looking to Peter as your master because you believe the Roman Catholic tale that Jesus founded the church on him, and you must give allegience to your church at all costs.

Lastly You just made a personal attack on me and made some generalizations. First off you believe the Bible. Did Peter or did he not preach the Gospel in his sermon in Acts were 3000 were added to the Church? Second if you want to ignore the Apostle writings and Epistles and just look at Christ’s words we can go that route too.
Thirdly the only allegience I have is to Christ. Jesus Christ is My lord and Savior and has been for over 30 years. And for your information I have been in Protestant Bible Believing Evangelical/Fundamentalist Churches for over 20 years. I’m, not even Catholic yet (well actually I am since to be Catholic is to be part of the Universal Church Christ founded- the word Catholic means that “universal” church- It’s from the Greek and it is in the Bible). But because there are major problems with the Protestant assumptions Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. they are flat out Unbibllical and wrong. I am coming home to the Church that has the fullness of Christ’s Truth. The Church Christ himself founded, the continuation of the Early Church.

 

[brosam]

It shows how they interpreted Scripture back then during the time of the Apostles. And if you study everything they taught is in perfect unison with the scriptures.

But you would have me believe that they taught Purgatory, which isn’t Biblical.

Definitely by the Word of God.

Then do that.

However you make the faulty assumption that your private interpretation is infallible.

And when did I assume this?

That has led to 30000+ protestant denominations.

Source?

Which one is rightfully dividing the word of truth?

Everyone that holds to Bibical orthodoxy.

2Peter 1:20
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation

First of all, it didn’t get past me that you took this verse out of context.

Second, do you even know what this verse is referring to?

Yes And they were in the hands of who? The Early Church.

Way to go out on a limb, there, dean.

That is true but not in the way you are interpreting it.

OK. Show me from the scriptures how we’ve misinterpreted it.

Actually he did mention Baptism in his Sermon.

But not for salvation.

The rest can be Biblically supported

I’ve asked in several threads and, so far, no one has been able to show where they’re found in scripture.

Again he did, just not as you interpret it.

And, again, show me from the scriptures how we’ve misinterpreted it.

PS: where do you get your interpretation- Your Pastor, your Church, the writings of Scoffield, DL Moody.

2,000 years of Christian orthodoxy and sound hermeneut principles.

You see nobody reads the Bible completely uninfluenced)

I agree. The question is, what makes you think that your influences are correct?

Thirdly the only allegience I have is to Christ. Jesus Christ is My lord and Savior and has been for over 30 years.

Then why are you following a false religion that perverts His word?

But because there are major problems with the Protestant assumptions Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. they are flat out Unbibllical and wrong.

OK. Show me what’s Unbiblical about them.

The Church Christ himself founded, the continuation of the Early Church.

Do you really not see the circular reasoning in that statement? The only reason you can say that Christ founded Roman Catholicism is because Roman Catholicism tells you that Christ founded Roman Catholicism.

 

[heisenburg]

If baptism is so unimportant… why is it mentioned so many times… why did Jesus get baptized as that he could show by example…

You say we haven’t showed you any scripture… but we have… We may not agree on the meaning of scripture, but we have shown you.

Now, the problem comes in with who has the correct interpretation. Saying its not in the bible, and saying i don’t agree with your interpretation of the bible are two different things.

However, to be fair… if you want both biblical AND historical support for the various beliefs… Check out the links provided… Even if you dont agree with our interpretation, They are interpretations that come from the bible. Saying we have not provided you with scripture is false…
Baptism
Are Catholics Born again
Assurance of salvation

Check it out, plus the many others…

In Christ

 

[NonDenom]

Hi Mastda, it is true that the last few months I was confronted with issues that I either needed to discredit, disprove or…accept. These issues I have come to peace with and subsequently I am again more confident in my “not being a Catholic”.

Anyway, I am not Catholic Bashing in the least. Just responding on this thread more in defense of this TV propgram and its founders. That is all. I just acknowledge that most will not agree with me because of the theological differences. I have no, that is none what so ever, desire to Catholic bash. Why would I?

This exchange is very interesting, when a Protestant give his opinion he is “Bashing” when a Catholic gives his opinion he is, in his opinion speaking truth. I thought Forums were a place where people were supposed to exchange beliefs and ideas. When a Protestant says something he is being mean and uncharitable, but it’s not the same for Catholics.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

This exchange is very interesting, when a Protestant give his opinion he is “Bashing” when a Catholic gives his opinion he is, in his opinion speaking truth. I thought Forums were a place where people were supposed to exchange beliefs and ideas. When a Protestant says something he is being mean and uncharitable, but it’s not the same for Catholics.

What is interesting is non-Catholics coming to a Catholic forum and proceeding to tell Catholics 1) What they believe (and what they think Catholics believe is most often way off) and 2) Why it is, at best, misguided and at worst, a satanic cult.

 

[brosam]

If baptism is so unimportant

Who ever said that Baptism is unimportant?

You say we haven’t showed you any scripture… but we have… We may not agree on the meaning of scripture, but we have shown you.

Yes, you’ve shown scripture that you’ve taken out of context and applied false meanings to. However, when I say, “show me where it’s found in scripture”, what I mean is make a credible case using the scriptures that baptism is required for salvation.

Now, the problem comes in with who has the correct interpretation. Saying its not in the bible, and saying i don’t agree with your interpretation of the bible are two different things.

 

[deanarrca]

I still don’t know how to do that multiple quote thingy. if someone would be so kin to explain it, It would make answering posts so much easier.

Quote:
That has led to 30000+ protestant denominations.
Source?
**First try the phone book or look up Christian denominations and see what you get
**
Quote:
Which one is rightfully dividing the word of truth?
Everyone that holds to Bibical orthodoxy.

**There is the problem which ones hold to Biblical orthodoxy?How do you know? You are relying an someones interpretation.

As I said for over 20 years I was a member of 3 Bible Believing Evangelical/ Fundametalist Churches and attended 3 others. A total of 6 in all. They ALL Interrpreted the Bible Differently. None were in agreement. Actually one Church kinda interpreted doctrine by committee. When there was some sort of doctrinal misunderstanding the Deacons got together to discuss it using the Bible of Course. And then decided by commitee what the churches stance would be. Of course it was unigue to that individual church. If the Bible were so clear that anyone could understand it then why all the confusion. oh they need the “Holy Spirit to guide them into all Truth”. OK Which one has the Holy Spirit. Bosom I will assume you go to a Church? Which Church do you attend. Once you were "saved: to use your vernacular how did you discover or find this Church? By What criteria are you using to make sure they are Biblically orthodox? Just Curious.
**
Next:
Quote:
PS: where do you get your interpretation- Your Pastor, your Church, the writings of Scoffield, DL Moody.
2,000 years of Christian orthodoxy and sound hermeneut principles.

**OK 2000 years you say so what sources are you looking to prior to the reformation? The way in which you interpret many doctrines can not be found prior to the Reformation.

I don’t no what other threads you are on, but this is the first one I started reading. but all the other issues you bring up would have to be addressed individually on other threads. First of all even this post is off topic for this thread.
**
Quote:
The Church Christ himself founded, the continuation of the Early Church.
Do you really not see the circular reasoning in that statement? The only reason you can say that Christ founded Roman Catholicism is because Roman Catholicism tells you that Christ founded Roman Catholicism.

No I see no circular reasoning at all. I definetly believe that Christ established ONE faith. It is easy to see the unbroken continuation of that faith in not only the Roman Catholic Church but also the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Like two branches of the same lung. All the rest of the present Christian denominations (and Christian Cults) can really only trace their origin back to the reformation. If you could possibly show me that early Christians going all the way back 2000 years to Christ and the Apostles taught and interpreted Scripture, God’s Word, in the way you are presenting arguments here. I would be happy to listen. Biblical Orthodoxy was established by Christ and was taught by the Apostles and preserved in the Word of God and in his Chruch.

 

[brosam]

First try the phone book or look up Christian denominations and see what you get

In other words, you’re making a claim that you have no source for.

There is the problem which ones hold to Biblical orthodoxy how do you know. you are relying an someones interpretation.

And therein lies the problem. You’re relying on someone else’s interpretation. We study the scriptures for ourselves.

As I said for over 20 years I was a member of 3 Bible Believing Evangelical/ Fundametalist Churches and attended 3 others. A total of 6 in all.

I see. So, you were a church hopper. That’s not a very good sign.

They ALL Interrpreted the Bible Differently.

OK. Let’s see if you can back this up. Name two of them and tell me how they differed on the essential doctrines.

None were in agreement.

How is it, then, that I can go into any Christian church in my area, churches of varying denominations, and know that they’ll accept me as a brother in Christ because we agree on the essential doctrine of Christianity?

And then decided by commitee what the churches stance would be.

Oh, you mean like one of the councils Roman Catholics are always telling us we should listen to.

OK 2000 years you say so what sources are you looking to prior to the reformation?

The way in which you interpret many doctrines can not be found prior to the Reformation.

May I ask what your background in theology is?

I don’t no what other threads you are on, but this is the first one I started reading. but all the other issues you bring up would have to be addressed individually on other threads.

In other words, you’re making more claims without having the courage to try to back them up.

No I see no circular reasoning at all. I definetly believe that Christ established ONE faith. It is easy to see the unbroken continuation of that faith in not only the Roman Catholic Church but also the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Like two branches of the same lung. All the rest of the present Christian denominations (and Christian Cults) can really only trace their origin back to the reformation. If you could possibly show me that early Christians going all the way back 2000 years to Christ and the Apostles taught and interpreted Scripture, God’s Word, in the way you are presenting arguments here. I would be happy to listen. Biblical Orthodoxy was established by Christ and was taught by the Apostles and preserved in the Word of God and in his Chruch.

Where in the Bible do we see that Christ established Roman Catholicism?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

In other words, you’re making a claim that you have no source for.

30,000+ Protestant denominations - Source: Gordon Conwell University (Protestant)

 

[davidv]

Where in the Bible do we see that Christ established Roman Catholicism?

You, my friend, have the cart before the horse. Christ established the Catholic Church before the bible was put in its current form. That aside, there many exchanges recorded between Peter and Jesus demonstrating that establishment.