What does "Church" mean to you?

[elvisman]

This does not present a problem to me since if it doesn’t refer to water baptism, no contortions are required for unborn or unbaptised infants to be saved.
What does Jesus mean then? He is referring to the twofold rebirth by the Spirit mentioned in Ezekiel 36. The first is the cleansing from sin and the second is a new spirit.

This is what is referred to as Baptismal Regeneration. NOW, you’re getting it!
You’re beginning to sound like a Catholic.

What then is this water? Jesus uses the imagery of water several places in John’s gospel The first is John 3:5. Then there is John 4:10-14 and John 7:38-39.
Clearly Jesus is using water to describe the Holy Spirit and in John 3:5 He is again using water as a reference to the Holy Spirit who both cleanses and renews the spirit.

That WOULD make sense except for ONE thing:
Why would he say “water and spirit” if he meant “spirit and spirit”.

Jesus wasn’t an idiot. If all he meant was “spirit”*, he would have said, "unless a man is born of spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."*
BUT - that’s not what he said. He spoke of water AND spirit.

**Sorry, Carl. Again - it just doesn’t pass the smell test . . .

Another indication that water baptism is not what born of water and the spirit means is that Jesus expected Nicodemus as a Pharisee to understand what He meant.
Christian baptism had not yet been instituted so Nicodemus could not be expected to know of it.

Nicodemus SHOULD have known. Jesus scolded him because, as a religious leader, he should have been able to translate the Scriptures correctly but failed to do so. The Pharisees harrassed John the Baptist about why he was Baptizing because they didn’t get it either - just as many Protestants today just don’t get it.

 

[elvisman]

The church agrees that it’s not water baptism but a spiritual baptism? Good. That makes the idea that baptism regenerates logical as the Holy Spirit brings to life our human spirit.

Yes, and it is accomplished with water.

Correction: your understanding, not a translation.

**NOPE - that’s what it says. **

John 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?

No mention of baptism.

Like I told Carl in my last post:
**Nicodemus ****SHOULD ****have known. Jesus scolded him because, as a religious leader, he should have been able to translate the Scriptures ****correctly **but failed to do so. The Pharisees harrassed John the Baptist about why he was Baptizing because they didn’t get it either - just as many Protestants today just don’t get it.

The water baptisms performed in John 3 were not with pure water, it was in a body of water, not the sprinkling of pure water.

It was water. They didn’t have Sparkletts back then. This is by FAR, your silliest statement yet.
**Talk about *****grasping ***. . .

The OT reveals a relationship with God through rituals. The NT reveals relationship with God, not by rituals, but by relationship through the new birth by faith in Jesus and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

You’re DEAD wrong** - we don’t agree.**
Why, then, do Protestants have rituals such as infant dedications, baptisms, weddings, funerals, altar calls, etc? As usual, Doki - you’re talking out of BOTH sides of your mouth.

---

We are PHYSICAL beings and God knows that. This is why he gave us PHYSICAL means of practicing our faith. This is why Jesus came in the flesh to be sacrificed instead of simply declaring us redeemed. This is also why Jesus used PHYSICAL means to heal. When he healed the blind man, do you honestly thing it was necessary for him to make mud with his saliva and rub it in his eyes? He could have simply declared him healed but used PHYSICAL means to accomplish it because we are PHYSICAL beings.

---

**There you go again trying to pigeonhole God into YOUR flawed understanding of him.

 

[Publisher]

We are PHYSICAL

beings and God knows that. This is why he gave us PHYSICAL means of practicing our faith. This is why Jesus came in the flesh to be sacrificed instead of simply declaring us redeemed. This is also why Jesus used PHYSICAL means to heal. When he healed the blind man, do you honestly thing it was necessary for him to make mud with his saliva and rub it in his eyes? He could have simply declared him healed but used PHYSICAL means to accomplish it because we are PHYSICAL beings.

---

**There you go again trying to pigeonhole God into YOUR *flawed ***understanding of him.

On this you and I “agree”…but the “physical means” of practicing our faith isn’t in ritual observances or rites performed for us by “someone” who has the “power” to perform these rituals.

The “physical means” of “practicing” our faith is in service to others…each time we offer drink or bread in His Name to one who is hungry…we “practice our faith”…each time our hands move to comfort or heal…each time we speak the “ritual words” of love and mercy we “practice our faith”.

Your pointed questions to friend Dokimas concerning “baby dedications” and “baptisms”…etc is one very much on the hearts of Friends…

The Society of Friends has been described by some as the “culmination of the Reformation”…we do not practice any ritual observances…each of us is priest for him or her self to approach God directly without anyone being required to “conduct a ritual or rite” on our behalf. Quakerism is the end result it would seem…no rituals or rites observed…only a life lived out in obedience to the will of God is the only “necessary” “ritual” needed…all required ceremonial observances and need of a 'sacrifical priesthood" was nailed to the cross…We have One Single Priest that stands in our stead before God…Jesus of Nazareth…the only Baptism that saves is in the Spirit…the only bread that “saves” is the Bread of Life…the only wine that “saves” comes from the True Vine…

In Christ there is Freedom from the requirements of ritual observances.

 

[elvisman]

On this you and I “agree”…but the “physical means” of practicing our faith isn’t in ritual observances or rites performed for us by “someone” who has the “power” to perform these rituals.

The “physical means” of “practicing” our faith is in service to others…each time we offer drink or bread in His Name to one who is hungry…we “practice our faith”…each time our hands move to comfort or heal…each time we speak the “ritual words” of love and mercy we “practice our faith”.

Your pointed questions to friend Dokimas concerning “baby dedications” and “baptisms”…etc is one very much on the hearts of Friends…

The Society of Friends has been described by some as the “culmination of the Reformation”…we do not practice any ritual observances…each of us is priest for him or her self to approach God directly without anyone being required to “conduct a ritual or rite” on our behalf. Quakerism is the end result it would seem…no rituals or rites observed…only a life lived out in obedience to the will of God is the only “necessary” “ritual” needed…all required ceremonial observances and need of a 'sacrifical priesthood" was nailed to the cross…We have One Single Priest that stands in our stead before God…Jesus of Nazareth…the only Baptism that saves is in the Spirit…the only bread that “saves” is the Bread of Life…the only wine that “saves” comes from the True Vine…

In Christ there is Freedom from the requirements of ritual observances.
Am I to understand that Quakers don’t have baptisms or weddings? No funerals? Interesting.

Richard Nixon was a Quaker and I can assure you that he and Pat got married in 1940. His daughters were also married. I can also remember to the footage of him crying at Pat’s funeral . . .

I asked no "pointed" questions of Dokimas - just questions. Finally - I wouldn’t brag about being the “culmination” of the divorce from Christ’s only Church - which is what the “Reformation” was.

 

[Publisher]

Am I to understand that Quakers don’t have baptisms or weddings? No funerals? Interesting.

Richard Nixon was a Quaker and I can assure you that he and Pat got married in 1940. His daughters were also married. I can also remember to the footage of him crying at Pat’s funeral . . .

Friends do not practice water baptism…nor do we use bread and wine for Communion…and as far as weddings go…we do get married…“after the manner of Friends”…there is no minister or priest officiating or pronouncing “you are now husband and wife.”…the two Friends who wish to be married stand in Meeting…claim each other as “spouse” and declare themselves …“married before God.”

Many Friends adopt “Protestant” wedding ceremonies when non-Quaker guests and family are involved.

My wife and I stood in Meeting and pledged our lives to one another…everyone present signed the marriage certificate and we were married…the Clerk of the Meeting filed our license with the state.

The only words spoken wer by my wife and I…“In the presence of God and these our Friends,I take thee to be my <wife/husband>,
promising with Divine assistance to be unto thee
a loving and faithful <wife/husband>
as long as we both shall live.”

That’s all the “ceremony” we had.

 

[Publisher]

Quakers aren’t against anyone performing ceremonies…we simply reject that any ritual, ceremony or rite has any “grace” dispensing “powers”…God alone dispenses grace to those who trust in faith and receive Him. We acknowledge the Light Within as that “of God” which we seek to obey.

A Christian’s life is not about rites and rituals…as was Judaisms…but a life of service to others…“service” is our “sacrament”…Life is to be lived in sacred communion with the Eternal…because of what Jesus did for us…we need no one else to “stand in the person of Christ”…He is already Present among us…so no one need stand “in his stead”.

 

[SyCarl]

**And, as I ****ALREADY **pointed out to you - Jesus gave his Church his Supreme Authority to declare his truth to the world and it would be ratified on earth - and in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, 18-15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23). He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide it to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).

---

I ALSO pointed out to you (twice) that you cannot pigeonhole God into your way of thinking. Just because you adhere to a wooden, literal interpretation of his Word - doesn’t mean that HE does.

---

This is precisely the kind of blunder Protestants make with MANY Scripture verses, creating false doctrines as a result. Sola Fide (faith alone) is defended by verses like Rom. 10:9**, *“…***if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
**However, you guys throw away *all ***of the other verses that completely debunk Sola Fide and list the things that we must DO to cooperate with God’s grace in order to be saved like:

---

- Being baptized (Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:5, Rom. 2:29, Col. 2:12-17, 1 Peter 3:21**)**
- Picking up our cross* daily* to follow him (Matt. 16:24, Luke 9:23)
- Works of mercy and charity (Matt. 19:21, 25:31–46,Luke 18:22)
- Obeying his commandments (John 15:10)
- Doing the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21)
- Dying and being buried with him through Baptism (Rom. 6:1-11)
- We must suffer with Christ (Matt. 10:38, 16:24, Mark 8:34, John 12:24, Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 1:5-7, Eph. 3:13, Phil. 1:29, 2 Tim. 1:8, 1 Peter 2:19-21, 4:1-2).

It is not me who is trying to pigeon hole God. You are trying to force water baptism into John 3:5, a place where it doesn’t fit. Whatever authority the Church has does not allow it to change Jesus’ words.

Let me go through it one more time. Jesus says:

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(Joh 3:5 NASB)

You say Jesus is referring to water baptism. I say that if He speaking of water baptism then Catholic doctrine is contrary to Jesus teaching.

What does the word unless mean? It means what follows it is absolutely necessary. This is not pigeon holing anything or giving anything a wooden meaning. It is simply recognizing that Jesus used the word “unless” and doesn’t include any exceptions. Can you say that the word “unless” has any other meaning?

The Catholic Church teaches that water baptism is the ordinary means of regeneration but it allows exceptions for baptism of desire and baptism of blood. That is fine except that Jesus’ statement here doesn’t allow for any exceptions.

It is true that God can do whatever He wants and what He has done is use the word “unless”. If any other means but water baptism is allowed then He is not being truthful when He uses the word “unless” here.

Can Church authority change God’s word to negate the word “unless”? I don’t think so. So relying solely on the Catholic teaching of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, we can see that Jesus cannot be speaking of water baptism unless you are willing to admit the Catholic Church does not follow Christ’s words here.

There is nothing Protestant about this argument. It is based soley on what Jesus says here and what the Catholic Church teaches. If Catholic teaching is true, then Jesus cannot be referring to water baptism in John 3:5.

As for the list of things you give that we must do, I agree that that we must do them but not that they have any salvific value.

 

[Dokimas]

Sorry for butting in like this, but I must say “Oh the nit picking”!
We don’t know everything Doki, we trust God for our precious aborted babies and those dieing without Baptism, Peace, Carlan.

It’s refeshing to find someone like me that admits they don’t know everything. I hope, if you were following the conversation, my response was based on the comments of others that seemed to think they know everything or at least a lot more that us non-catholic Christians.

 

[SyCarl]

This is what is referred to as Baptismal Regeneration. NOW, you’re getting it!
You’re beginning to sound like a Catholic.

That WOULD make sense except for ONE thing:
Why would he say “water and spirit” if he meant “spirit and spirit”.

Jesus wasn’t an idiot. If all he meant was* “spirit”*, he would have said, "unless a man is born of spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."
BUT - that’s not what he said. He spoke of water AND spirit.

**Sorry, Carl. Again - it just *doesn’t ***pass the smell test . . .

**Nicodemus SHOULD **have known. Jesus scolded him because, as a religious leader, he should have been able to translate the Scriptures correctly but failed to do so. The Pharisees harrassed John the Baptist about why he was Baptizing because they didn’t get it either - just as many Protestants today just don’t get it.

Jesus uses the words water and spirit hear to emphasize the twofold effect of regeneration set out in Ezkiel 36. Water refers to the first part which is the cleansing from sin. Spirit refers to the second part which is giving us a new heart and spirit. It no more requires physical water than John 4:10-14 means we will have an actual well of physical water inside us or that we will never have thirst again.

Jesus makes this clear in what follows John 3:5.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
(Joh 3:6-10 NASB)

Jesus does not refer to water again while He is speaking to Nicodemus. He refers only to the Spirit. It is particularly relevant that He says no one knows where the Spirit comes from and where it goes. If water baptism imparted the Holy Spirit we would know exactly where it comes from, the water used by the priest, and where it is going, the one being baptised.

Does any of this mean that water baptism is not important or that infants shouldn’t be baptised? Of course not. Jesus tells us to baptise and it is the sign, seal and promise of the New Covenant, but that does not mean it is anymore regenerative than physical circumcision was under the Old Covenant.

 

[elvisman]

Friends do not practice water baptism…nor do we use bread and wine for Communion…and as far as weddings go…we do get married…“after the manner of Friends”…there is no minister or priest officiating or pronouncing “you are now husband and wife.”…the two Friends who wish to be married stand in Meeting…claim each other as “spouse” and declare themselves …“married before God.”

Many Friends adopt “Protestant” wedding ceremonies when non-Quaker guests and family are involved.

My wife and I stood in Meeting and pledged our lives to one another…everyone present signed the marriage certificate and we were married…the Clerk of the Meeting filed our license with the state.

The only words spoken wer by my wife and I…“In the presence of God and these our Friends,I take thee to be my <wife/husband>,
promising with Divine assistance to be unto thee
a loving and faithful <wife/husband>
as long as we both shall live.”

That’s all the “ceremony” we had.

You don’t have funerals?
Do you have weekly services?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

In order to enter the wedding feast one must take a bath and put on their wedding garment;
Baptism is not a symbol, it is a sacrament administered by Water and Jesus himself who gives us His Holy Spirit. Sprinkling our hearts clean deals with a removal from an evil consience, but it takes the water that washes our bodies anew graces us with the clean wedding garment.

Hebrew 10:19
9 Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary
20
10 by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh,
21
11 and since we have “a great priest over the house of God,”
22
let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, **with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience 12 and our bodies washed in pure water. **

1 John 5:6
This is the one who came through water and blood, 2 Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth.
7
**So there are three that testify,
8
the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord. **

I agree with St. Augustine in his view of what Church means;
St. Augustine (Sermon to the people of the Church of Caesarea, chap. 6
"One cannot have (salvation) except in the Catholic Church. Outside of the CAtholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing the alleluia, one can answer the Amen, one can have the Gospel, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and preach, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church

Jesus uses the words water and spirit hear to emphasize the twofold effect of regeneration set out in Ezkiel 36. Water refers to the first part which is the cleansing from sin. Spirit refers to the second part which is giving us a new heart and spirit.** It no more requires physical water than John 4:10-14 means we will have an actual well of physical water inside us or that we will never have thirst again.**

 

[elvisman]

Jesus uses the words water and spirit hear to emphasize the twofold effect of regeneration set out in Ezkiel 36. Water refers to the first part which is the cleansing from sin. Spirit refers to the second part which is giving us a new heart and spirit. It no more requires physical water than John 4:10-14 means we will have an actual well of physical water inside us or that we will never have thirst again.

Jesus makes this clear in what follows John 3:5.

Jesus does not refer to water again while He is speaking to Nicodemus. He refers only to the Spirit. It is particularly relevant that He says no one knows where the Spirit comes from and where it goes. If water baptism imparted the Holy Spirit we would know exactly where it comes from, the water used by the priest, and where it is going, the one being baptised.

Does any of this mean that water baptism is not important or that infants shouldn’t be baptised? Of course not. Jesus tells us to baptise and it is the sign, seal and promise of the New Covenant, but that does not mean it is anymore regenerative than physical circumcision was under the Old Covenant.

**Oh, Carl - don’t you realize all of the Scriptural acrobatics you have to do to arrive at your position? What Jesus said was simple: Water AND spirit. **

And, what does Jesus do several verses later in that very same chapter? Verses 22-23 tell us that he - AND John spent time BAPTIZING people. WATER Baptism:
**"After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing. **
John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was an abundance of water there, and people came to be baptized…"

Like I said before - NOTHING in Scripture is accidental or coincidental. This chapter of John was written whis way for a reason. This is why 1 Pet. 3:20-22 tells is emphatically:
**"…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. ****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, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him."

**If you can’t see the necessity of water baptism here - there is nothing else I can say to make you see the light.

 

[elvisman]

It is not me who is trying to pigeon hole God. You are trying to force water baptism into John 3:5, a place where it doesn’t fit. Whatever authority the Church has does not allow it to change Jesus’ words.

Let me go through it one more time. Jesus says:

You say Jesus is referring to water baptism. I say that if He speaking of water baptism then Catholic doctrine is contrary to Jesus teaching.

What does the word unless mean? It means what follows it is absolutely necessary. This is not pigeon holing anything or giving anything a wooden meaning. It is simply recognizing that Jesus used the word “unless” and doesn’t include any exceptions. Can you say that the word “unless” has any other meaning?
The Catholic Church teaches that water baptism is the ordinary means of regeneration but it allows exceptions for baptism of desire and baptism of blood. That is fine except that Jesus’ statement here doesn’t allow for any exceptions.

It is true that God can do whatever He wants and what He has done is use the word “unless”. If any other means but water baptism is allowed then He is not being truthful when He uses the word “unless” here.

Can Church authority change God’s word to negate the word “unless”? I don’t think so. So relying solely on the Catholic teaching of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, we can see that Jesus cannot be speaking of water baptism unless you are willing to admit the Catholic Church does not follow Christ’s words here.

There is nothing Protestant about this argument. It is based soley on what Jesus says here and what the Catholic Church teaches. If Catholic teaching is true, then Jesus cannot be referring to water baptism in John 3:5.

As for the list of things you give that we must do, I agree that that we must do them but not that they have any salvific value.

WRONG, Carl.

Again - you** CANNOT**** contain or entrap God by reading the Scriptures in a wooden, literal sense. There are exceptions to EVERYTHING and those exceptions are up to GOD. **

Take the idea of what happens to infants who die. Scripture is silent on the matter. They had NO faith, so according to most Protestant sects, they are not saved. However, God can make exceptions for them. The same can be said about the doctrine of the Trinity. NOWHERE is it explicitly taugh but that truth was proclaimed by the Catholic Church. The same goes for the Hypostatic Union of Christ and so on.
In Matt. 18:3 Jesus said:
"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
What about babies? What about the severely retarded? Can they “change”?
NO**, they can’t.**

In John 6:53, Jesus states in no uncertain terms:
"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”
Again – what about little babies? What about the severely retarded? What about the comatose?

In 1 Cor. 14:9, Paul states:
“So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.”

What about sign language? Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake here?
NOPE** – YOU just won’t let God make exceptions because YOU read the Scriptures in a flawed, literalistic fashion.**

 

[SyCarl]

WRONG, Carl.

Again - you** CANNOT**** contain or entrap God by reading the Scriptures in a wooden, literal sense. There are exceptions to EVERYTHING and those exceptions are up to GOD. **

Take the idea of what happens to infants who die. Scripture is silent on the matter. They had NO faith, so according to most Protestant sects, they are not saved. However, God can make exceptions for them. The same can be said about the doctrine of the Trinity. NOWHERE is it explicitly taugh but that truth was proclaimed by the Catholic Church. The same goes for the Hypostatic Union of Christ and so on.
In Matt. 18:3 Jesus said:
"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
What about babies? What about the severely retarded? Can they “change”?
NO**, they can’t**.

In John 6:53, Jesus states in no uncertain terms:
"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”
Again – what about little babies? What about the severely retarded? What about the comatose?

In 1 Cor. 14:9, Paul states:
“So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.”

What about sign language? Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake here?
NOPE** – YOU** just won’t let God make exceptions because YOU read the Scriptures in a flawed, literalistic fashion.

Your argument has a gaping flaw in that it can be used to justify anything if the words of Scripture are not fixed and binding.

What happens to the Catholic position that there is only one Church? God can allow exceptions to everything so the passages that talk about one church are meaningless. God can allow as many churches as He wants.

There is only one Church, although you and I would define it differently.

What happens to Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church claims it is biblica and requiredl. What does that matter since God can do anything He wants. Anybody who wants to can claim God has allowed them authority.

Jesus tells Peter that the gates of hades will not overcome the Church. What value is this if God can allow anything He wants despite what He has recorded in Scripture?

The list could go on forever.

 

[GaryTaylor]

WRONG, Carl.

Again - you** CANNOT**** contain or entrap God by reading the Scriptures in a wooden, literal sense. There are exceptions to EVERYTHING and those exceptions are up to GOD. **

Take the idea of what happens to infants who die. Scripture is silent on the matter. They had NO faith, so according to most Protestant sects, they are not saved. However, God can make exceptions for them. The same can be said about the doctrine of the Trinity. NOWHERE is it explicitly taugh but that truth was proclaimed by the Catholic Church. The same goes for the Hypostatic Union of Christ and so on.
In Matt. 18:3 Jesus said:
"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
What about babies? What about the severely retarded? Can they “change”?
NO**, they can’t**.

In John 6:53, Jesus states in no uncertain terms:
"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”
Again – what about little babies? What about the severely retarded? What about the comatose?

In 1 Cor. 14:9, Paul states:
“So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.”

What about sign language? Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake here?
NOPE** – YOU** just won’t let God make exceptions because YOU read the Scriptures in a flawed, literalistic fashion.

Agree’d Elvis.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Your argument has a gaping flaw in that it can be used to justify anything if the words of Scripture are not fixed and binding.

What happens to the Catholic position that there is only one Church? God can allow exceptions to everything so the passages that talk about one church are meaningless. God can allow as many churches as He wants.

There is only one Church, although you and I would define it differently.

What happens to Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church claims it is biblica and requiredl. What does that matter since God can do anything He wants. Anybody who wants to can claim God has allowed them authority.

Jesus tells Peter that the gates of hades will not overcome the Church. What value is this if God can allow anything He wants despite what He has recorded in Scripture?

The list could go on forever.

I’ll have to start breaking this down sentence by sentence which I’m not capablle of doing at the moment due to time.

As fas as the gates of Hell as instucted to Jesus to Peter. This is 2000 years in the making and Christs words are still binding to His church. And they will continue to be.

As far as other denominations. Lets face it, had Christ so chose this to change its would done in one NY minute. The Orthodox and Catholic church is a perfect example. One must conclude the only reason that changes haven’t occured in supernatural. There were mistakes made by the CC and then the orthodox and we are reaping thats which we sowed. But will correct it or cease to exist as christianity is known today.

As far as Apostolic Succession, This is a recorded fact in history. Even when the Jesuits had a fall out and many walked away from the CC with JP-{which has now been corrected} They were quick to point out the faults they believed existed. Yet they never questioned to authority of the CC. Just man made mistake and correctly so.

Matter of fact leading Jesuits were quick to say that the CC “is” the cornerstone of Christianity, should the CC fail to exist all Chrsitianily would fall be the wayside.

Gods position with the CC is identified and confirmed through the mystics. Its not maybe right, its absolutely right. We simply don’t know Gods plans for denominations. But it will be made clear in time as He so wills it. The illusion is to think others have it right and the CC doesn’t. Thats pure evil at work and the price we pay for our mistakes. The error in denominations is with mankind and is the chastisement of mankind. Gods will, no doubt will correct this a should follow His intructions such as with fatima, and abortion issue and christian heresy like Islam. Then we will bring this better day of the Lords Kindom to light.

God will unite Christianity and Judaism as He wills. And as we come more into a State of Grace, as He so defined iy to be.

The error was with the eastern church. Is with the Catholic Church and we have paided dearly for that mistake, which had led to todays present situation with denominations.

We see now, right here with very good Christains who are bending over backwards to come in-line with the Catholic Chruch. And as we continue to put out petty differences aside, God will do the rest. All on need to do is spend some time here and it becomes very clear there are some very Good Christians who are very good people. And would nothing more the the Church combined to create a better day for mankind. Ands it mankind that is the issue. Not each and every one of us and our petty thoughs.

I see very good Chrsitians here daily of Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Angelican. Orthodox. Catholic, and many others, who have no problem accepting up to the 7th ecumanical council. And as all reach this point the will of God will correct the remaining issus’s. Let us work to bring everyone t the 7th. Then the Truth will become sknown by Gods will

This is going to happen and the doctrine of the CC is not wrong. When the point of contention becomes only Mary, and then the Miracles of Zeitoun and Fatima occur. The righting is on the wall. No time in recorded history has God predicted, dated and confimed a Miracle from Him. And then it happemed exactly as stated. He clearly instucted and warned mankind of the coming period. Its up to us to make his happen as much as humanly possible

The issues continue to be in mans hands. Not with Gods will of His Catholic Church. He has instructed man and proved is was the will of God. Free Will is now the obstacle,

Should we correct abortion and unite the eastern and western church, the world will immediately become that much better of a place. And a few of the other churchs close behind will follow suit. Then other or they will cease to exist.

And Gods will would be immediately noticeable. Those combinations alone would usher in a greater day for mankind.

We are at the brink right now and building a better world. or utterly failing to do so, by our own selve serving ideas.

To me thats exactly how it is. We can’t stand ohter political mistake in the voting poles. Abortion has to go.

 

[elvisman]

Your argument has a gaping flaw in that it can be used to justify anything if the words of Scripture are not fixed and binding.

What happens to the Catholic position that there is only one Church? God can allow exceptions to everything so the passages that talk about one church are meaningless. God can allow as many churches as He wants.

There is only one Church, although you and I would define it differently.

What happens to Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church claims it is biblica and requiredl. What does that matter since God can do anything He wants. Anybody who wants to can claim God has allowed them authority.

Jesus tells Peter that the gates of hades will not overcome the Church. What value is this if God can allow anything He wants despite what He has recorded in Scripture?

The list could go on forever.

Here’s the problem with what you just said, Carl. You can CLAIM authority, but Jesus only gave it to ONE Church - ONE Body.

God can allow exceptions in the way he brings people to the truth but in John 17, Jesus emphatically stated that he wanted his Body to remain ONE - as he and the Father are ONE. He prayed this no less than three times in the same prayer (John 17:21-23).

As Dominus Iesus points out - there is only ONE Church. All of the “denominations” are not really churches in the full sense of the word, but ecclesial communities in need of full communion with that ONE Church established by Christ.

 

[SteveVH]

Jesus does not refer to water again while He is speaking to Nicodemus. He refers only to the Spirit. It is particularly relevant that He says no one knows where the Spirit comes from and where it goes. If water baptism imparted the Holy Spirit we would know exactly where it comes from, the water used by the priest, and where it is going, the one being baptised.

SyCarl, water is a sign. The Holy Spirit does not come from the water. Water signifies the deeper spiritual reality occurring in our souls. It signifies cleansing, death and rebirth. The reality is that our souls are cleansed, we have died to sin and have been reborn into supernatural life. This is accomplished by the Holy Spirit who is sent by the Father through the Son.

When the sick and dying are anointed with oil, the Holy Spirit does not come from the oil. The blessed oil, used to heal and strengthen, signifies the action of the Holy Spirit within us.

So, you cannot separate water from the Holy Spirit in baptism. The Holy Spirit is present and essential in order for the sacrament to be valid and effective. The water is the outward sign of the inward infusion of grace.

 

[Publisher]

**You don’t **have funerals?
Do you have weekly services?

We meet each First Day for worship. The tradition I belong to utilizes “un-programmed” Meeting for Worship.

Each of us wait upon the Lord to speak to us…we join with one another in a Living Silence…and if one of us is let to offer vocal ministry…he or she stands to offer the “Word of the Lord” to the Meeting.

Some Meetings there is no vocal ministry offered…instead we join one another in the “Living Silence” and Commune with God and one another as members of the Body of Christ.

We do not believe “Sunday” is better than any other day…each First Day is “Resurrection Day”…as are Second Day…Fifth Day or Seventh Day…we as individuals and collectively worship daily…I personally 'enter into Meeting" every morning for about 30 minutes before I get ready for work…

We do have funerals…they are much like our “weddings”(I understand some may think I’m trying to be humurous…but rest assured…a “wedding” is not a prelude to a “funeral”…the casket or urn is placed near the “facing bench” and each of us waits upon the Lord and offer vocal ministry and celebrate the life lived.

While we all share in “rituals of life”…we do not ascribe to these “rituals” or “rites”…if they can be called that from a Quaker perspective…to dispense “grace” by participating in them…IF however you experience the Living Christ in your midst by participating in such rites and participating in such rituals…we have no issue…as long as the rites and rituals you participate in instill within you a sense of the Divine and Eternal…and inspire you to live in compassion and walk gently upon the earth…if such things make God “real” and “present” for you…wonderful…

It is the testimony of Friends that in Christ each of us has immediate and unrestricted access to God without need of rite or ritual or priest performing any rite on our behalf…All ritual requirements have been fulfilled in Christ Jesus…in Him and Him alone is where all grace and mercy flows and through Him we “live and move and have our being.”

 

[SteveVH]

We meet each First Day for worship. The tradition I belong to utilizes “un-programmed” Meeting for Worship.

Each of us wait upon the Lord to speak to us…we join with one another in a Living Silence…and if one of us is let to offer vocal ministry…he or she stands to offer the “Word of the Lord” to the Meeting.

Some Meetings there is no vocal ministry offered…instead we join one another in the “Living Silence” and Commune with God and one another as members of the Body of Christ.

We do not believe “Sunday” is better than any other day…each First Day is “Resurrection Day”…as are Second Day…Fifth Day or Seventh Day…we as individuals and collectively worship daily…I personally 'enter into Meeting" every morning for about 30 minutes before I get ready for work…

We do have funerals…they are much like our “weddings”(I understand some may think I’m trying to be humurous…but rest assured…a “wedding” is not a prelude to a “funeral”…the casket or urn is placed near the “facing bench” and each of us waits upon the Lord and offer vocal ministry and celebrate the life lived.

While we all share in “rituals of life”…we do not ascribe to these “rituals” or “rites”…if they can be called that from a Quaker perspective…to dispense “grace” by participating in them…IF however you experience the Living Christ in your midst by participating in such rites and participating in such rituals…we have no issue…as long as the rites and rituals you participate in instill within you a sense of the Divine and Eternal…and inspire you to live in compassion and walk gently upon the earth…if such things make God “real” and “present” for you…wonderful…

It is the testimony of Friends that in Christ each of us has immediate and unrestricted access to God without need of rite or ritual or priest performing any rite on our behalf…All ritual requirements have been fulfilled in Christ Jesus…in Him and Him alone is where all grace and mercy flows and through Him we “live and move and have our being.”

Publisher, thanks for sharing your faith tradition. Very interesting. I especially love the silence that you experience and that you are comfortable in that silence. It is something of which we are all in great need. It is in silence that we hear the voice of God and in this busy world, many of us find it difficult to find the peace found in silence.

We hold Sunday above all other days as it was the day that Christ rose from the dead. God set apart the Sabbath as as day of rest, but more importantly as a day to keep holy. When Jesus rose from the dead, however, a new era was ushered in; the new and everlasting covenant. It has been referred to by our Church as the “eighth day of creation” because through it we become a new creation in Him. However, we also celebrate Mass each and every day of the year with the exception of Good Friday.

Do you have any sort of “communion” in your community and if not I would be interested in how you interpret Jesus’ command to “do this in remembrance of me”? You hadn’t mentioned that as part of your Meeting and I have to plead ignorance as far as my knowledge of the Quakers.

Thanks.