When do we receive the Holy Ghost?

[Katholikos]

Quote:
Originally Posted by oudave
I feel that you are very wrong when you speak of the New Testament coming from the church and not God. 2 Tim 3:16 says that All Scripture is God-Breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. The catholic church thinks that it has the authority over God’s word and your post is a fine example of that. Dave.

Mickey wrote: Wrong again Dave! Katholikos is saying that the people who wrote the NT were inspired by God–they were Catholic–hence the NT came from the Catholic Church. Nice try though!

---

Jay Damien replies:

Spot on, Mickey!:tiphat:

oudave: St. Paul was writing about the Greek Septuagint OT in 2 Tm 3:14-17 – the only “sacred scriptures” Timothy could have known “since childhood.” The NT didn’t yet exist. You (and all Protestants) reject the Septuagint, so where does that leave you?

Peace be to you and to all who post at Catholic Answers.

 

[cyprian]

RobinHood:

What do you mean by ‘sin after baptism’?

I’m not sure what you are asking of me. I will try my best to answer you once I understand your question.
What is a quasi-Catholic? I believe in most Catholic beliefs, but not all. I’ve been searching through the catechism and the Bible. I need to have a thourough understanding of both before I can announce that I’m a Catholic.

I can honestly say though that I am a Christian.

Sorry, jumping ahead a little I am.
God was showing Peter that baptism was for all and thus the Holy Spirit is revealed to all in the way that God had to do it. “Recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have” He talks here about the distinguishing effect of theHoly Spirit on those who believe or accept the truth. Remember Peter was preaching, these people believed what was said and the Holy Spirit shows up and says in effect" These good folk need to be baptised!" Also original sin is not a* something* but a lack of something, a darkness where there should be light and Baptism turns the light back on so to speak in a way that is permanent, it’s a mark that puts one eternally joined to Heaven. But as we know that even after this mark of God on our soul, we can still lose what God freely gives by turning away and turning to sin. Ephesians 1-13 speaks of the *seal of baptism, the permanence of it(water regeneration). Jesus said “*Unless a man be born of water *and *the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”. there is no alternative regeneration going on, or in Mark 'He who believes (first) and is baptised shall be saved, and he who does not?,I think we know the rest. There are no "if’s or maybe’s going on. Notice the order just like in Acts, there were those who 1.upon hearing the good news believed and 2. were baptised as also I’m sure (just like today)there were those who thought water baptism was bunk, and well, we hope for the best for those.
Great sharing with you. Peace and love, my Catholic brother in Christ Jesus.

He is All
I am nothing

 

[Church_Militant]

oudave said:

Hi
I feel that you are very wrong when you speak of the New Testament coming from the church and not God. 2 Tim 3:16 says that All Scripture is God-Breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. The catholic church thinks that it has the authority over God’s word and your post is a fine example of that.
Dave.

Dave, I don’t see how you can say that since it’s a fact. The New Testament was written by who? The Apostles, right? The Holy Spirit inspired them to write the things they did, but God did not write any part of it Himself, and to believe that virtually deifies the Bible, which we know would be wrong, right? The term “God-breathed” is translated “inspired of God” and that is exactly the way we think of it. God breathed it into the hearts of the writers. Still it is factually correct to recognize that the church existed before the New Testament and that it was in fact it’s author. Besides, the very verse you just used says that the Bible is useful, but nowhere does it allege to be all sufficient or to interpret itself.

Look…if we have the writings of a man who was a close disciple of St. John, the last of the apostles to die, (say Ignatius of Antioch) and he says things about the church and what they believed and practiced, and we know that he gave his very life for his faith in Christ, then, just as a historical reference, doesn’t it make sense to refer to those writings to help us get a clearer idea of what we believe and insure that we are in line with what the apostles believed? I mean, you do the same thing pretty much when you read R.A. Torrey, or D.L. Moody, or Martin Luther or any commentary on the Bible. You’re checking another believer’s notes to see if you can gain insight into the meaning of a given passage of scripture. It may not be inspired, but it’s certainly insightful and may help us live our lives more closely to Our Lord, right?

As for the authority of the church…we really oughtta open a thread for that discussion because it’s pretty involved.
Pax tecum,

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Church Militant:

oudave said:

Dave, I don’t see how you can say that since it’s a fact. The New Testament was written by who? The Apostles, right? The Holy Spirit inspired them to write the things they did, but God did not write any part of it Himself, and to believe that virtually deifies the Bible, which we know would be wrong, right? The term “God-breathed” is translated “inspired of God” and that is exactly the way we think of it. God breathed it into the hearts of the writers. Still it is factually correct to recognize that the church existed before the New Testament and that it was in fact it’s author. Besides, the very verse you just used says that the Bible is useful, but nowhere does it allege to be all sufficient or to interpret itself.Hi, C.M. God is Spirit and uses us humans as his hands.To say God doesnt write is not true . He writes through us. God Bless brother.

Look…if we have the writings of a man who was a close disciple of St. John, the last of the apostles to die, (say Ignatius of Antioch) and he says things about the church and what they believed and practiced, and we know that he gave his very life for his faith in Christ, then, just as a historical reference, doesn’t it make sense to refer to those writings to help us get a clearer idea of what we believe and insure that we are in line with what the apostles believed? I mean, you do the same thing pretty much when you read R.A. Torrey, or D.L. Moody, or Martin Luther or any commentary on the Bible. You’re checking another believer’s notes to see if you can gain insight into the meaning of a given passage of scripture. It may not be inspired, but it’s certainly insightful and may help us live our lives more closely to Our Lord, right?

As for the authority of the church…we really oughtta open a thread for that discussion because it’s pretty involved.
Pax tecum,

Hi C.M. Do you think God owns a Mount Blanc Pen? I do. We[human flesh] are the ones God uses to write His Word. God Bless brother.

 

[Malachi4U]

When an apostle/whomever was ‘inspired’ to write Sacred Scriptures of the NT only, does that mean that God forced them to write the NT or that these men freely choose to write the NT based on their Faith and the Tradition from the Church that learned them that Tradition? (‘Learned them’, Thats good Southern slang!) Could they have declined to write Scriptures? Are there inspired Scriptures that were lost or not included by the Catholic Church in Scripture? Could we still be ‘inspired’ to write more Scripture?

(This might drift enough to warrent a ner thread?)

A prisoner of Christ,