 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
JasonB82ABN
Little Hamster
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Jmj
Jack, that was a very interesting post! I think a lot of your understanding(s) are closer to what the Church teaches than you think – as crazy as that might sound to you!
I also had a hunch that you would only make a comment about the salvation issue.  Like I said, I would love to get into it… and I will. But, again… I’d really appreciate your patience and help (very much) as I TRY to stay on topic. And I would love to hear some of your thoughts about the present topic. Do you see what I’m saying?
I’m curious about something though – this is a quasi-doctrinal question for you. As a former Catholic (now Protestant) do you actually believe that literacy is a requirement for an individual’s salvation? I agree that studying the Scriptures can help a believer to grow closer to God (by learning.) But, what if you can’t read? What about all the millions and millions of illiterate Christians that have lived and died in the last 2,000 years. How did they not succumb to temptation and the lure of our enemy if they couldn’t study their Bibles? Just curious. (See what I mean! I can’t stay on topic without your help!   )
Good luck with your preaching assignment tomorrow! I’m sure you’ll do very well.
May the Lord be with you!
Jason
_________________
"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
- Saint Augustine |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Evee
Moderator
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 642
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 12Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. 22Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. 24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Hi GJ & Jason! Boy, it's good to be back talking things through w/you both. I have posted the passage in dispute just for my own reference. And I must say, Jason, I am agreeing w/GJ here. I do not see the multitude silencing b/c Peter is an authoritative figure. I see them silencing to give him the floor for his turn to speak. There is a major difference here. I kind of pictured this scene like in my own church. When the council meets, when someone has something to say, they keep silent for that person to speak. Then when everything is discussed, the leader (the President of Council) makes the final statement of the discussion when something has been decided. This is the role I see for James in this case. I see Peter as having his say b/c he is one of the leaders, but I don't see him as total authority over everyone in the room. It reminds me of when we meet w/our conference minister. She has her input & then the President of Council states what the Council's official position will be on the matter. The Conference Minister acts as a guide for us. I see Peter in that role. Not to diminish Peter's role at all, that's not what I'm saying. I hope I'm being clear here.
_________________
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking you know everything God has to say b/c you've read the Bible. Remember, God is STILL speaking. And surprisingly, through people we DON'T expect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonB82ABN
Little Hamster
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jmj
Hey Yvette! It’s great… and I mean GREAT to hear from you! 
I think I see what you’re seeing here. Particularly about the significance and point of the “multitude kept silence” verse. You’re interpretation is perfectly valid I think! But, I don’t think they are irreconcilable either… not an either/or, but a both/and situation. I think you don’t have to exclude one interpretation to consider the other – know what I mean?
I think the main reason I offered that interpretation is because I disagreed with the idea that St. Peter’s authority was being downplayed or that St. James had MORE authority than Peter. I was mostly just trying to illustrate that St. Peter DID have an authoritative role in the council. And I definitely do not agree that St. James was the first Bishop of Rome – Jerusalem, yes… but not Rome. As far as these passages go… I think they (Sts. Peter and James) were acting (more or less) as equals in this case, with the exception that it was St. James’s seat (Cathedra,) his bishopric and location that the council was taking place at.
Again, great to hear from you again!
May the Lord be with you!
Jason
_________________
"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
- Saint Augustine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonB82ABN
Little Hamster
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jmj
Hello Jack, Yvette, and anyone else kind enough, interested enough (or bored enough) to read through my tedious posts!
Jack, I noticed your post in that other thread and since nobody seems to have any interest in discussing the Primacy of Peter anymore (am I to assume that I’ve given enough examples to help you change your mind ) I might as well as take a stab at salvation like you’ve been waiting for!
You wrote:
| Quote: | I just had to butt in. Yes, Water Baptism something a Christian should participate in, but according to the Book of Acts, it is done symbolically to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. Water Baptism does not save anyone period. It's a lie of Satan that has held many in bondage for many years. Also, who is our interpreter for scripture? Of course, the Holy Spirit. He will lead you into all truth. Before we study the Bible, we should always pray for guidance. We are also to discern spirits, and if a spirit tells you to believe in something other than what the Bible teaches, you can be rest assured that this spirit is deceiving you.
sorry for butting in, but it gets my dander up when some denomination teaches that water Baptism saves. It's completely false. I think there are about 7 Baptism's taught in the Bible, like the Baptism of fire in the upper room. |
Question my friend - where does the book of Acts say “Baptism is done symbolically” Jack? Are you reading the Cotton Patch version or something?
If the notion that Baptism plays an instrumental part in our salvation is a lie of Satan, why does St. Peter say (of baptism) that it “saves you now”? If it was just symbolic, then the next line that says “it is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God…” seems very contrary. If it WAS only symbolic, then the removal of dirt comment would make sense only if it WAS a removal of dirt - and therefore also a symbolic effect by its virtue of association. (Did that make sense? ) I don’t think you should get your "dander up" when people present a very Biblical (and traditionally accurate) view of Baptism – especially when the Bible never says that Baptism is only symbolic. You are of course free to believe that the Bible IMPLIES it (not that your belief will make it so,) but where does it say it? As strongly as you seem to feel you are correct in your belief that Baptism is only symbolic... that it is just a symbol - you would almost think your very strong conviction would require that the Bible actually said it!
Jesus said | Quote: | | “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit…” |
We've discussed this verse before Jack. I contend that Christians have always believed this particular verse was explicitly referring to Baptism, so I am claiming that there is a historical basis (and historical proof) for this belief in addition to the plain teachings of Scripture. You might very well disagree on the Biblical interpretation, (which is your prerogative of course! ) but I challenge you to give any example from the early Church that supports your belief that this passage does not refer (first and foremost) to Baptism. And while you're at it (if you care to make an attempt that is ) try providing an example from any Christian literature and writings from the early Church that denies the salvific elements of Baptism. I suggest we can call it a draw if I can provide 10 for any 1 example you can provide. Fair enough?
St. Peter also said, | Quote: | | “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” |
Question, why does St. Peter say we should repent and be Baptized? He explicitly says “for the forgiveness of your sins”! He even goes on to say that through Baptism, a believer receives the Holy Spirit! Which is certainly in line with Jesus’ example – during His Baptism (the greatest model for Christian Baptism, which is clearly different than the baptism John the Baptist had been performing according to the Scriptures ) we see this…
| Quote: | | “After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened (for him), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (and) coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” |
Holy Cow Levites! That says that the Holy Spirit literally came down upon Him when He was Baptized!? Why? He WAS God, what need had He for the Holy Spirit to descend upon Him, much less to be Baptized? Because… He was leading the way for US! Setting a divine example – which is certainly part of what His entire life, death, and resurrection was about! As He said: | Quote: | | "Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." |
And only after this, did He begin his ministry – Baptism (in Him) is the beginning of our journey (in Him.)
In another part of Salvation History... What was the first thing that St. Paul was told to do after he obeyed God’s command to journey to Damascus?
| Quote: | | Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. |
What what what!? Baptism washes away your sins!? I thought having faith alone did that? Why should St. Paul need to be Baptized – he already has faith doesn't he? I mean, he knows very well what an incredible thing just happened to him (he was blinded by His light, knocked to the ground, he heard His voice, was audibly rebuked for his mistakes, literally heard the verbal commands of God, and had then had his sight restored when he followed them) – he is certainly a believer at this point. Many point to these glorious events as the greatest conversion story in Salvation History! So... uhmmmm... why now must he be Baptized? He's already become a believer - he should already be "saved" right? Why? Because it was something that was “appointed for” him to do… by God. These are not vain works of man, nor the lies of the enemy.
Baptism doesn’t effect us? It doesn’t unite us with God? It doesn’t bring about our “new life” and through it, we are not “born again”?
| Quote: | | “[A]re you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through Baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.” |
It certainly SEEMS like the Scriptures at least indicate that we are born to a new life and are united to Him through Baptism. (Notice the lack of anything similar to “baptism is purely symbolic by the way” here – the language is very literal.)
| Quote: | | “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” |
Why is St. Paul very clearly comparing baptism to circumcision? Effectively calling Baptism the new circumcision? Because! As circumcision was the normative method of entering into God’s Old Covenant (for adults AND children ) – Baptism is the method He chooses for us to enter into His new Covenant! Notice again the same idea… in Baptism we are united with Christ and raised to new life – with Him! A requirement for this Baptism to be effective is what? FAITH! If we hop into a bathtub and someone baptizes us, but we don’t really have faith… we don't really believe... what good is it without faith?
| Quote: | | "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." |
Pretty strong words here! Is this not the first thing He says and commands of His remaining Apostles after His Glorious Resurrection in Mark’s Gospel? Surely Jesus does not mean that we must believe AND be baptized to be saved! That just cannot be! Surely not! And again – the same notion St. Paul speaks of… no belief? - Baptism won’t help much will it?
Once again, please just consider the forerunner example of our Baptism’s – His. Look at what happens when He is Baptized – the same story is present in all 4 Gospels (to a less detailed extent in St. John’s I suppose.) Baptism – water, the Holy Spirit, and being declared His Son! And in later texts – we are told that in Baptism we are re-born in Him! All of these elements – should we not at least recognize? Is it even safe to compare this to the "lie[s]of Satan"? Or should we discard the sacrament of Baptism (regardless of His explicit commands) or maybe just downgrade it to being a “symbol” (though the Scriptures never say it is) because it reeks too much of “salvation by works”?
Okay Jack! There’s my start! I am sure you will have some good examples of verses that you believe counter these. Some key points (I believe) that I’ve tried to illustrate here and that I believe are never contradicted by the Scriptures are: Baptism is never described as a symbol. Baptism does play a part in our salvation – and certainly our initial justification when we are given a “new life.” The connection with Baptism and water is always assumed – never separated. Without belief AND Baptism working hand in hand (it’s a BOTH/AND concept… not an EITHER/OR one!) we cannot be saved.
I know there is a lot more to discuss in regards to scriptural understanding of salvation. It is a large topic to deal with... and in truth, it deserves more attention that we could probably afford it here! But I figured we should probably start with Baptism – both because of your recent post… and because that is where He started!
May the Lord be with you!
Jason
_________________
"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
- Saint Augustine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evee
Moderator
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 642
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jason,
I can see what you're trying to say regarding Peter, however, I disagree w/you on the point that Peter was THE FINAL authority on matters. When discussing the whole "pebble" "rock" thing, I see it this way:
Jesus told Peter that he was the rock upon which Jesus would base His church. Of course, Jesus was the cornerstone & then Peter drew from there. I believe that Jesus "started the ball rolling" in other words w/Peter. Peter was given the power to start spreading the good news that Jesus was risen. If we're taking the stance that golfjack had suggested about a "pebble", then we must look at what a pebble does. This is no way diminishes the power Peter had. In fact, a "pebble" is a mighty force when thrown into the water. As a matter of fact, I think the water & the pebble have a great deal of significance here. A lot of these men were fishermen & John baptized w/water. So water was a big significance in that time. When you throw a pebble in water, it makes a ripple effect. Peter in essence was that pebble. He started the ripples. His preaching had a ripple effect.
As far as "loosing & binding", we all have that authority. Jesus tell us so in this passage -
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:15-20 RSV)
He specifically gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom". What were those keys? It was the truth that Jesus was the Son of God & He was the only One who could save. That was the key that Peter had the authority over. Peter was the one to confess it first 3 times. So Jesus responds to him. THIS is the key, Peter. This is what I'm going to base my church upon. THese words.
See what I'm saying?
_________________
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking you know everything God has to say b/c you've read the Bible. Remember, God is STILL speaking. And surprisingly, through people we DON'T expect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
golfjack
Lion King
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 1127
Location: arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:06 am Post subject: reply |
|
|
No Jason, I haven't changed my mind. I know Catholics believe this, and their proof isn't found in God's Word. They use the Church Father's to prove their points. Consider this, How do you know that they are right? I say that they are wrong, and your church continues to be wrong. The early church fathers called the Jews, Jesus killers, and all the way up the 1960's, persecuted the Jews. Even, Luther persecuted the Jews. Did you ever stop to think that your Traditions are wrong, or do you blindly believe them. I believe there is a reason for this. Your Church throughout history teaches a false Gospel and still does to this day, but is starting to get better. Let me give you a few examples: Rosary, Mary without sin, praying to saints in heaven, purgatory, Mary's assumption up to heaven, Jesus at communion is there in the flesh, and many other false doctrines. These teachings just do not line up with the Word of God. All it is, is just religion. Why don't you do some research? You will find out that many of things done in your church started with Nimrod. (idol worship).
This might be hard to swallow, but just had to say some things because I am honest and direct with anyone whom God has called me to minister too. I hope I didn't offend you because you are a nice person. I will siign off for now, but will be back to discuss Water Baptism.
May God bless, Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
golfjack
Lion King
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 1127
Location: arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:45 am Post subject: reply |
|
|
Hi Jason, I think in the interest of time, why don't we tackle water baptism by you reading my post in Bible doctrine titled the New Birth experience? Then, you can ask questions. I think you biggest problem is a lack of understanding of Spiritual things, and I guess, you still won't admit that we are spirit, composed of a soul, and our flesh as a covering. You see, Baptism is a Spiritual cleansing that wipes away our sins. Salvation is all about forgiveness of sins, and for sure water Baptism doesn't forgive sins. We do get water Baptized in obedience to Christ, but again it has no saving power.
May God bless, Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonB82ABN
Little Hamster
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jmj
Yvette, it is very good to hear from you again! And I’m surprised and extremely happy that you had more to say about our earlier topic!
| Quote: | | I can see what you're trying to say regarding Peter, however, I disagree w/you on the point that Peter was THE FINAL authority on matters. |
Fair enough! Although this might not be explicitly said in the Sacred Scriptures (though I think it certainly has a lot of support- and I will provide much more Scriptural support if you wish ) it is a verifiable fact of Sacred Tradition! So I'm going to make a case for Sacred Tradition - something you might be unfamiliar with, but has been a part of Christianity since the very beginning.
Taking the two into account, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, we have authoritative evidence that St. Peter is the "final say." You, of course, are free to reject Sacred Tradition – though St. Paul in Sacred Scripture tells us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2Thes 2:15) In that passage (and others as well) the need for oral tradition is clearly evident and regarded as being at least equal to the written tradition. There is no way he was talking about the false "traditions of men" here... yet he commands us all the same to hold to the traditions! What traditions are those!? SACRED Traditions! These are not the vain works of man my friends!
What I think is interesting is that you (and all non-Catholic Christians) accept and follow Sacred Tradition - without even realizing it! I asked someone on this forum recently (when I mistakenly thought they were purposely trying to imply that commentaries in a Protestant (study) Bible are “inspired”) what they thought of a few things… like: the chapter headings in the Bible, the verse numbers on the page, the title of the individual books, and in fact – the table of contents at the beginning of their Bible… are these words and numbers “inspired”? I think you would agree… that they certainly are not. (And definitely not the commentaries! )
But, consider this - if you believe that the Sacred Scriptures are your sole source and foundation of truth… and you reject Sacred Tradition and call it “man-made” … how do you explain the table of contents in the front of your Bible? Where in Sacred Scripture, does it say that John’s Revelation is “inspired”? Or the book of Hebrews? Or any of the New Testament books? Does the Gospel of Matthew say, “Yes friends, the Gospel of Mark is also inspired.”  No, the New Testament books do not prove themselves within and from themselves.  So, where from Scripture can you prove which books are Scriptural?
This doctrine, commonly called “Sola Scriptura” is sort of like a hand-me-down legacy of Martin Luther and it is something almost all Protestants have in common. This doctrine basically is an idea is that the “Bible alone” is the sole source of faith for Christians (though I contend that it was not believed by Christians before the Protestant Reformation – and is not actually taught in the Bible.) To even question it - now - seems almost crazy to some Protestants – I think that is because Sola Scriptura is just something that most take for granted and assume! Even if someone has never heard of it, they believe it – they assume it, because it’s deeply engrained in Protestant Christianity. Like I mentioned, part of the problem is somewhat self evident – because the Bible doesn’t prove itself (I’ll address that first.) Another problem, I think, is that this “Bible alone” doctrine is un-Biblical.
One of the first people I was pointed to when this issue first came up (for me) was St. Paul. In 2 Tim 3:16, he certainly doesn’t tell us which 27 books are supposed to be included in the New Testament, nor does he give credit to or substantiate ANY writings from any of the Apostles… he doesn’t even suggest or imply that he has any idea that there ever will BE such thing as a New Testament! When he was penning the words “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,” a simple look at the context reveals that he was obviously and absolutely not referring to the New Testament. And the two proceeding verses prove this definitively – I suggest that it’s not even CLOSE to being a matter of personal interpretation in this case, it’s very clear.
St. Paul never says or claims that what he is writing is inspired Scripture, he never says that any works he has yet to compose will be inspired Scripture, he never indicates that he is at all aware of the Gospels or other canonical books, and several books that were later to be included in the cannon had not even been written yet - so, he wasn’t referring to those books either. In order for this doctrine (‘Sola Scriptura’) to hold water AND for anyone to believe in the inspiration of the New Testament - the cannon would need to be proved FROM the "Bible alone." You could not rely on Sacred Tradition or any outside source.
St. Paul would have to refer to other NT books as inspired and say that his were inspired as well, or some other NT book would have to do so - in order for anyone to be able to justify which books are in the New Testament. But they don't. And if they did, that would be circular reasoning! It all boils down to the testimony of the early Church fathers – Apostolic Tradition - what we Catholics call Sacred Tradition!
Try this out… if you have a good Protestant study Bible (with introductions and such at the beginning of each book) – just take a moment to read about where the validity of each of the books comes from. I suggest you just start at the beginning and try the Gospel of St. Matthew. And ask yourself “Do we rely on the testimony of the early church fathers?” You might very well come across names like: Papias, Irenaeus, Clement, Eusebius, as well as many references in general to the “early church” or “early church fathers.”
The writings of the early church are not inspired, and they are not Sacred Tradition themselves, but they demonstrate it! They demonstrate that the Church was the foundation of truth, not the "Bible alone" (the New Testament didn't even exist yet!) Just like the writings from different people of note in American history can teach us about what America was like as a growing nation, the fathers show us how the very earliest Christians practiced their faith – and what they believed! (And make no mistake - these people quoted the Scriptures themselves like they truly believed there was no tomorrow! They are VERY heavy and deep in Scripture - as were the NT writers! ) And when ALL the numerous writings from the early church fathers agree... and agree strongly... on doctrinal issues – wouldn't you say that it’s a good idea to listen?  These are the people that were disciples of the Apostles themselves! Or students of their disciples... or at least very near to the original source of the Gospel -much closer than we are.
Do you ever wish... when Christians disagree on Biblical interpretation and doctrine... that you could go back in time and hear from the earliest Christians what they thought? What THEY practiced? And what THEY believed? You can! I highly recommend you re-discover the early church and see how many of your beliefs are in common with these highly intelligent and extremely devout Christians - the martyrs and fathers from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries and beyond. You might be surprised at what you find! I think you should want to learn about these people. In fact… in all seriousness… why wouldn't you (or any Christian) want to!?
| Quote: | | When you throw a pebble in water, it makes a ripple effect. Peter in essence was that pebble. He started the ripples. His preaching had a ripple effect. |
These comments and the preceding paragraph are very insightful and you offered some very thoughtful things! I very much agree with and appreciate the point of much of what you are saying! It’s a fair illustration, using figurative language, of the role Peter and the Apostles had in His Church. But, I will say this… Christ wasn’t using metaphors when he named Simon – “Rock.” And He never said “You are a pebble,” either. That is the point I was making with the whole "On this rock" discussion.
| Quote: | | He specifically gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom". What were those keys? It was the truth that Jesus was the Son of God & He was the only One who could save. That was the key that Peter had the authority over. Peter was the one to confess it first 3 times. So Jesus responds to him. THIS is the key, Peter. This is what I'm going to base my church upon. THese words. |
I think that there is more significance to the keys that you are assuming. Did you take the time to read my earlier post when I went into more Biblical detail about “the keys” and where the context and wording points us to? Please, I humbly beg you… if you have the time… please consider taking another look. It’s on the page before this – under “Keys of Authority” in bold.
| Quote: | | As far as "loosing & binding", we all have that authority. |
Jesus in this passage gives this authority to His disciples that are in union with one another. He gave the authority to a collective group – not any one of them as an individual… except for St. Peter.
There was a reason He gave authority to His Apostles you know… and it certainly wasn’t so that a little more than 1,500 years later people could just start deciding for themselves what they wanted to believe about Him and that each individual had the authority to be his very own Pope! You said yourself that you believe that you have this authority – but what if you believe conflicts with what another Christian believes? Has that ever happened? The Church agrees that all Christians, when unified in belief have this authority – but I regretfully suggest that we are pretty far from being unified in belief. And since the Holy Spirit can’t be teaching individual Christians conflicting “truths” – we have a serious problem. Because the Holy Spirit cannot lie... we can't all be right... and the outcome of acknowledging no authority is that the Gospel will not be proclaimed in the fullness of truth - because the entire Christian world is telling each other "We'll just have to agree to disagree."
Who do we listen to? Who is our authority? WE are our own authority. “I only listen to the Holy Spirit!” – which can sometimes be translated, “If you disagree with me, that's sad… but my only authority is me!” No my friends, this is not what He intended for us! He did not leave us to be lost in confusion. The Bible does not say "As long as you all agree on the KEY doctrines, it's okay that you disagree on smaller matters of faith." And if it did... it would have to tell us what the key doctrines were!
Notice in that quote you provided, Jesus Himself tells us where to go for the final say: “And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. “ Do we listen to and hear “the church”? Do we even acknowledge that we should?
“The Church”? The "churches" don't all agree... we have hundreds of different denominations... and literally thousands of divisions within those denominations. None are truly in full "communion" with one another - they believe and teach different things. So, why would He tell us to go the the Church? Can we just pick one that agrees with US?? And if He meant what He said ... about us needing to go to the Church... which one? Didn't He intend for there to be thousands of different churches that have a myriad of different "versions" of His truth? If not... where can you find the foundation of truth? In "the Church"?
Which one?
You are most definitely in my prayers!
May the Lord be with you!
Jason
_________________
"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
- Saint Augustine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evee
Moderator
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 642
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jason. I'm running off to work soon & your response takes a lot of reflection & time to sort through that I don't have this morning so I'm going to point out something about the keys.
While I agree that a lot of churches disagree on certain things contained in the Bible, we all agree on ONE thing -- the MOST IMPORTANT thing, which I believe is the KEY that Jesus was talking about. And that truth is that Jesus Christ is the way to the kingdom of heaven. Every Christian church that has been formed is based on this fundamental truth. I believe this is exactly what Jesus meant when He spoke to Peter b/c of Peter's confession right before that. You say that you don't believe that Christ was using a metaphor, but He had used them so much in HIs life, then why would this be any different? Jesus had always spoken in parables.
Well, I must go now, but I hope we can have more dialogue on this. This is fascinating for me. God bless.
_________________
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking you know everything God has to say b/c you've read the Bible. Remember, God is STILL speaking. And surprisingly, through people we DON'T expect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonB82ABN
Little Hamster
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jmj
Greetings folks!
Holy Week, Holy Week, Holy Week! What a joyful/sorrowful time … I love Holy Week. I hope we all have allowed our Lenten season to be fruitful and to help bring us closer to our Lord Jesus Christ!
I’ll respond to your replies first Jack, okay?
| Quote: | | No Jason, I haven't changed my mind. I know Catholics believe this, and their proof isn't found in God's Word. |
I believe the proof can be found in Sacred Scripture – I also believe that there is something preventing you from trusting in them.
| Quote: | | Consider this, How do you know that they are right? I say that they are wrong, and your church continues to be wrong. |
Consider this Jack… how do you know that YOU are right? You believe that you are more knowledgeable than the Early Church Fathers - the very Christians that LEARNED the truth from the Scriptures... AND the Apostles themselves? Or, I suppose you believe that Kenneth Hagin is/was more knowledgeable? You believe that you are endowed with all the knowledge and all of the important things necessary for understanding His Truth - the language(s), the geography, the culture, the general context, all the little nuances, and your superior ability to be lead by the Holy Spirit - better than the people who lived and learned from the Apostles – and were martyred for the faith? I don't put my complete trust in any one of the early fathers - they are not infallible - but they are certainly a good source! And I would argue that (in almost every case) they are a better source for understanding what Christians have believed since the VERY beginning than any contemporary Bible enthusiast.
| Quote: | | The early church fathers called the Jews, Jesus killers, and all the way up the 1960's, persecuted the Jews. Even, Luther persecuted the Jews. |
Even if all of what you are saying is true (and it isn’t) – what is your point exactly? You love Jews more than the Church? Perhaps a quote from the Catechism may enlighten you...
| Quote: | | '[N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion". . . "the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.' All sinners were the authors of Christ's Passion |
| Quote: | | Did you ever stop to think that your Traditions are wrong, or do you blindly believe them. |
Yes. No. Now… how about YOU my friend?
| Quote: | | Your Church throughout history teaches a false Gospel and still does to this day, but is starting to get better. |
Not getting better, the Church hasn’t changed any doctrine Jack – this is truly an impossibility. It never has, never can, and never will happen. You can change your doctrine… but the Church cannot.
I think you are only saying that the Church “is starting to get better” because your misunderstanding(s) of the Church’s teachings is/are being corrected. But, I am glad you’re becoming more open to learning the truth about what the Church actually teaches!
| Quote: | | Why don't you do some research? You will find out that many of things done in your church started with Nimrod. (idol worship). |
I certainly have my friend! And my research hasn’t relied on the (marvelous) scholarship of Lorraine Boettner. (Though I own and have read his book. ) And Nimrod/Idol worship??? Are you serious Jack!? I've wondered this before... your last name isn’t “Chick” by any chance is it!? (just kidding )
| Quote: | | This might be hard to swallow, but just had to say some things because I am honest and direct with anyone whom God has called me to minister too. I hope I didn't offend you because you are a nice person. |
It’s not hard to swallow for me Jack – the lumps I have in my throat are the ones brought about from the sorrow I feel when I reflect on how many innocent lives are taken by abortion and other sin. And also right now… reflecting on His Passion in preparation for Good Friday… that makes me sorrowful as well. What a sacrifice He made – for you and me and everyone. Quite a thing… quite a thing.
But, you didn’t offend me though Jack – and I appreciate your candor.
| Quote: | | I think in the interest of time, why don't we tackle water baptism by you reading my post in Bible doctrine titled the New Birth experience? |
I read your post – was there something specific you wanted to address? Because I think we’ve already spent some time on the whole soma (body,) psyche (soul,) and spirit (pneuma) topic before.
Did you have an opportunity to read my earlier posts? I know they’re long!  But, I’d love to hear some of your thoughts my friend.
In any case – I hope you have a blessed Easter! Keep you thoughts with Him!
May the Lord be with you!
Jason
_________________
"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
- Saint Augustine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonB82ABN
Little Hamster
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jmj
Greetings Yvette! Thank you for your kind words! I know how long some of my posts are… I really appreciate that you take the time to read them. It is very humbling. Thank you.
| Quote: | | While I agree that a lot of churches disagree on certain things contained in the Bible, we all agree on ONE thing -- the MOST IMPORTANT thing, which I believe is the KEY that Jesus was talking about. And that truth is that Jesus Christ is the way to the kingdom of heaven. Every Christian church that has been formed is based on this fundamental truth. I believe this is exactly what Jesus meant when He spoke to Peter b/c of Peter's confession right before that. You say that you don't believe that Christ was using a metaphor, but He had used them so much in HIs life, then why would this be any different? Jesus had always spoken in parables. |
I think that the metaphor I was referring to was the use of “Rock” as St. Peter’s name – I don't think I was referring to the keys. I don't think that the keys were necessarily a literal or tangible object… I was only joking about Jesus tossing St. Peter a set of keys earlier. And yes, I agree that He did use a lot of symbolism in explaining certain things! But, not always.
When people speak about things that all Christians agree on… I think that is a more difficult subject than many assume. I suggest you try picking up a copy of the reference book “Handbook of Denominations in the United States,” - I have the 11th edition, I think it is the most recent. Seeing what different religious groups believe (some more radical than others) - is interesting... and in some cases - kind of disturbing. In any case… sadly  … not all “Christians” agree that Jesus Christ is the Way my sister. Which brings up a good question... who has the authority to decide what beliefs make a person or a "group" - Christian? How many doctrines can be discarded, watered down, declared to be "un-essential to the faith," or outright manipulated and changed before a groups' status as "Christian" no longer remains intact?
For example - let's say (hypothetically of course ) that I DO believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior - and I DO believe He is God. And the source of my belief is my "Bible Alone" and my conviction is that the "burning in my bosom" and the fact that my beliefs can be reconciled with Scripture is evidence that the Holy Spirit has sealed my beliefs as 'true.' But, I also happened to believe that Jesus was a created being (like myself) - that He was set apart from conception and that He was so righteous that He attained Divinity. And that I too can attain this - as can the rest of mankind. Would you still consider me to be a Christian? What if my beliefs were even MORE radical than that? Or what if they were less radical? Where can we look for the foundation of truth? And who can answer these questions - IF we even care to ask!?
Believing in Him is essential… on this you and I absolutely agree! But what about what you believe about Him? Is this essential? Or if not... how much flexibility does He have with our acceptance of His Truth?
I think... if we care only about and put all our stock in believing in Him - but care less in what we believe about Him… thinking that He accepts our varying beliefs about Him(self) and the Truth that He gave to His world… then I think our “Christianity” has a question mark.
And I believe that this sort of thinking is pretty much just "spiritual ambiguity" - at best. Like - "There is no ONE truth - truth is in the eye of the beholder!" I believe this sentiment to be false... and it may be that the purpose of these sorts of ideas is to confuse and mislead people - so that the 'narrow path' is not as recognizable to them as they think.
I pray and I ask God every day for the strength and for the will to serve Him and Him only - and for the courage to follow Him wherever He will lead me. Praying earnestly for these things and denying myself and my own wishes - is part of why I made the choice to be a Catholic... and why I am a Catholic today. I have truly suffered and continue to suffer for this choice.
But, I do not wish for God to meet me on my terms – I wish only to meet Him on His.
| Quote: | | Well, I must go now, but I hope we can have more dialogue on this. This is fascinating for me. God bless. |
Take your time my sister! And please know that you are welcome to come visit a Catholic Church at any time! Why not attend Mass for this Easter in addition to your normal service? You could easily do both if you think it would be inappropriate for you to only do either/or. If you are interested - it’s usually very easy to just slip in anonymously and observe. You can participate as much as you feel comfortable with – you are even welcome to stay seated for the entire liturgy if you wish! You are most welcome to visit – and you will always be welcome! I do recommend you try sitting up front though! There's a lot going on!
You are in my prayers my sister. May the Lord be with you!
Jason
_________________
"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
- Saint Augustine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
golfjack
Lion King
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 1127
Location: arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:42 am Post subject: reply |
|
|
Hi my friend. Well show me where scripture says that there is Mortal sin. Show me where it says there is purgatory. Show me in scripture where Mary had no sin. When I read a book or am taught something about the Word of God, I must have some Bible truth of what they are saying for me to believe it. By the way, Brother Hagin is one of the finest teachers, and most humblist teacher that I know. He always backs up his statements with the Word of God.
Let's go down through history to see how Anti-Semitism in Christianity began with the statements of the early church fathers, including Eusebius, cyril, Chrysostom, augustine, Origen, Justin, and Jerome. These men published papers and historical pamphlets, some of which are included in what is known as Adversus Judaeos. John Chrysostom was called the Bishop with the golden mouth. In one of his homilies, he said that God hated the Jews. (no way). The crusaders are prersented as holy men on the road from Europe to Jersalem and back pursuing a righteous cause with the blessing of the pope. Not true. Pope Urban 11 preached (the call for Crusade) at Claremont, appealing to the French to recover the Holy Land for Christianit. These people were awful (blood-thirsty). Pope Pius the 12th, called by historians Hitler's pope, joined Hitler in the infamous Concordat of Collaboration, which turned the youth of the Germany over to Nazism, and the churches became the stage background for the bloodthirsty cry, Pereat Judea.
With all this said, some say Pope John will be remembered as the best pope the Jews ever had (good news). I got off tract here, but thought I would let you know of some the sins of your fathers (early catholic church). This is why I don't give heed to any of their teachings. It might be hard to swallow, but history proves this.
Hope you have a pleasant Easter. May God bless, Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonB82ABN
Little Hamster
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jmj
Greetings Jack! Very prompt response!
A quick answer to your first question… about where the bible talks about Mortal sin. How about this?
“If any on sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.” (1 John5:16-17)
One down… 50,000 more to go right!?
Here is what I see Jack – one by one, your misunderstandings about what the Church teaches can be corrected. Any you can one day come home to His Church! Provided you have a little patience and care enough to be open to learning! I have "hopeful confidence" in you my brother! And I am NOT even close to being the best person to be teaching anyone about Catholicism - there are experts, and I am certainly not one of them! What I am is just a layman... and a sincere Christian who cares more than just a little bit about you personally - and every Catholic who has ever left the Church. Largely because I can relate!
I don’t personally know Mr. Hagin, so I’ll take your word for it that he is a fine teacher and a humble man! I hope you didn’t misunderstand what I meant - I never intended to break the 8th commandment by bearing false witness against him. I was only commenting on how much you might believe and follow in his interpretations vs someone else's (like the early Church fathers.) There are many other extremely “fine” and abundantly “humble” (not to mention sincere and devout) Protestant teachers – who would strongly disagree with Kenneth Hagin’s biblical teaching. That was the basis of my point. I have no ill will against the man at all! As I’ve said before – I have a great amount of respect for ALL people who hear His “call” to shepherd – and follow through.
As far as the rest of your post goes… Jack, let’s be realistic here. You are misrepresenting some of the very people you rely on for the Sacred Scriptures! You truly want to make an argument that the Church is anti-Semitic? That’s fine… just PROVE to us where the church has ever taught anti-Semitism!
As far as anti-Semitic remarks from the fathers... the early Church WAS persecuted by some of the Jews who did not recognize Jesus as the Christ - are you disagreeing with this? Many remarks made about Jews from the non-Jewish early Christians reflected this fact. But, what is your point? Even if they were extreme or even sinful in their remarks – what difference does it make? None of the fathers are infallible - I think I've mentioned that once or twice! The Church fully acknowledges that the Body of Christ is made up of sinners called to repentance! Would you agree that everyone who reads your words could write off any and ALL testimony or words that you (personally) have given, written, or ever will give in your life - if I can simply demonstrate that you may have sinned? You would logically have to in order for your point to be meaningful. If you say "yes"... I actually have a fomer Army buddy that is now a Private Investigator in Pheonix... so watch out! (I'm kidding! - But I DO have an Army buddy in Pheonix who is a PI! )
If you need some non-biased historical reference material (and I believe you do ) – just ask! I can recommend some titles that I think you would agree are not too “Catholic”-ly or “Protestant”-ly biased. That is… IF you care enough to do your research without the burden of a “colored lens.” When I set out to do reseach on Salvation history - I initially had the conviction that I wouldn't trust any "Catholic" or any "Protestant" source... I only wanted an account from an "impartial" or "outside" observer! That in itself is quite a story! But, like I said... if you're interested, just let me know!
And I have to correct you… you DO give heed to many of their teachings! You just don’t credit them for it!
You’re in my prayers – my elder brother in Christ! I hope we all have a blessed Triduum! And that we “lift up our hearts” to the Lord!
May the Lord be with you!
Jason
_________________
"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
- Saint Augustine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
golfjack
Lion King
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 1127
Location: arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: reply |
|
|
Hi Jason, My friend you have much to learn. Yes, brother Hagin has been attacked by other believers, who seem to think that they are right. I don't much like when a believer attacks another believer. They are just heresy hunters. They don't like his teachings because he believes in healing, praying in tongues, and tries his best to teach God's people faith. He doesn't pay any attention to them at all.
You Catholics sure do assume many things. If your teaching doesn't respond to what the Bible says, they assume things like Mary without sin.
I John 5:16-17 doesn't mention mortal sin in my Bible. It mentions a sin that leads to spiritual death. It also says that sin (not venial) is wrong doing, and these sins do not lead to death. What is this great sin? It is the unpardonable sin (a sin that cannot be forgiven). That leads to what are the requirements to committ this sin? The short answer is total rejection of Christ after one has been saved. One oof the conditions is that one must be a fully mature Christian. Suggest you study Hebtrews 6:4-6 and you will see what I am teaching here. I myself believe in eternal security, and still do, but there are probably a few who committ this sin. Brother Hagin also preached that one cannot lose their salvation, but in one of his visions, Jesus pointed to scriptures that explain the unpardonable sin. Many Christians on this board don't believe one can lose their salvation. They will say that a person wasn't saved in the first place.
I do pray for you. I don't care if you stay a Catholic, but pray that you come to an understanding of salvation. It is a free gift, and God is not an indian giver. Do you still go to Bible studies, and where do you go?
May God bless, Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JasonB82ABN
Little Hamster
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
|
| |
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
