Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[Jim B]

I see nothing childish about our conversation. We ARE having an adult conversation; BUT we are not having a collegial conversation. We are not colleges. That is, I am not a member of your group and therefore I am going to remain unimpressed with arguments that you might tell each other.

I'm the monkey on the left; I speak no evil. I tell you the truth, but you interpret it as lies in light of the fact that I am challenging you to doubt everything you have thought you believed until now. That is to be expected.

I understand your frustration but church history has no bearing on our discussion. All we can learn from church history is how the NT was heard and understood and practiced down through history. But since the New Testament predates church history, it has little bearing on what the New Testament actually teaches.

It was common for early believers to veer off course, which is evident from the many epistles contained in the New Testament. Many of Paul's letters corrected false teaching, and false practice and false worldview of early believers. For this reason, I give little weight to the writings of the so-called "Early Church Fathers" and I firmly believe that Patristics is a complete waste of time. All of the many forms of the "Christian" religion, including Catholicism represent believers veering off course.

Believers veered off course down through history. But the New Testament remains as our guiding star, our way back to the Faith. The NT stands above any so-called "Christian" doctrine and remains a reliable source of God's will for all believers. The NT remains the constant unimpeachable, reliable authority over all believers with regard to faith and practice. Both Catholic and Protestant doctrine is subservient to the NT and stands as authoritative ONLY to the degree that it comports with the NT.

My beliefs concerning the choosing of an episcopes comes from Paul's letters to Timothy. And I ask you, did Paul command Timothy to choose "Bishops", with a capital 'B'? No. Paul does not recognize an ordained clergy; he does not recognize a religious institution; he does not recognize church governance, and he certainly would be unfamiliar with the concept of a diocese.

Paul recommended that Timothy appoint a bishop, small 'b'. “If someone aspires to the office of overseer, [bishop, small 'b'] he desires a good work.” The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife . . . He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?"

Compare Paul's description of the small b bishop with the Catholic doctrine concerning the big B Bishop. According to Catholic theology, Bishops must be unmarried men or widowers; a married man cannot become a bishop. Here we see just one example of how believers have veered off course. Paul declares that a bishop must be a married man and that good stewardship of his personal household is evidence that the bishop will serve as a good steward of the household of God.

And, Paul asserts, denial of marriage is one of the signal events indicating a desertion of the Faith. Paul was not coffering to Timothy the authority to choose and establish big B Bishops. He was nor ordaining a clergy member and the small b bishops had no position of authority. The bishop's role is to watch over the household of God as a guide, not a commander or a judge. The bishop serves in a teaching role, as if helping wayward sheep back into the fold. His crosier is the word of God and persuading with humility and respect, not punishment for disobedience.

The Bible knows nothing of a big B Bishop.

Great post!!! But I am quite certain that it will have no impact on Marymog's thinking. She has clearly swallowed Catholic doctrine "hook, line, and sinker". It is next to impossible to break through the Catholic veil of misunderstanding. They are enslaved to the teachings of men! If those teachings conflict with the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as they so often do, they will not accept the truth. Alas!

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is what I’m talking about – and WHY conversation with you is such a waste of time.

Need I remind you that it was YOU who to approached ME by responding to one of MY posts – not the other way around?

In my view, you wasted your time because you didn't pay attention to what I said. You resisted my thoughts because they might have convinced you of your mistaken views.

You have noticed haven't you, my insistence on Sola Scriptura? What kind of help would I be if I didn't know how to study the scriptures properly? And In my experience, interpretations mistakes arise when details in the text are ignored. We'll get to that in a minute.

My posts are filled with Scriptural, historical and linguistic evidence – while YOURS are nothing more than opinions and denials with ZERO evidence

Yeah, we talked about proof texting, which is a strategy employed by those who want to see their point of view in the Bible.

But do you honestly not realize when you, yourself give opinions and denials?

Even your opinions about married Bishops in Paul’s Epistle to Titus are totally unresearched.

Were you paying attention? I was talking about Paul's first letter to Timothy wasn't I?

1Timothy 3:1-2

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, skillful in teaching, ​

​

A celibate is not a husband. Therefore an overseer must be married.

Let's look at Titus, if you like.

Titus 1:5-9

5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is beyond reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of indecent behavior or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be beyond reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not overindulging in wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled, righteous, holy, disciplined, 9 holding firmly the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.​

In this context, not only must the overseer be married, his children need to be believers.

Your religion has lied to you.

Paul isn’t saying that a Bishop MUST be married.​

Yes, he is. He must be a husband of one wife.

If you had bothered to study the 1st century culture that Paul is writing about – you would KNOW that polygamy was common and that Paul was disqualifying polygamists from being Bishops – not bachelors.

Paul's letters to Titus and Timothy stand alone, apart from cultural practices. An overseer must be a husband and a good father and he must have believing children. Why?

Suppose a man came to Titus or Timothy looking for the job of overseer. What will Titus or Timothy ask the man? What's your home-life like? Are you married? Is your personal household organized and in good order? Are your children believers? They will not only interview the man, they will interview his wife and his children. Celibacy is not an option.

Your interpretation is in error because it fails to take the entire passage into account. It ignores sentences and phrases that are significant to the meaning.

Anyway, your continued insistence that Bishops didn’t exist in the NT in the face of the overwhelming Scriptural and linguistic evidence to the contrary is reason enough to demand that you do some homework before continuing this conversation . . .

I insist, without equivocation or wavering that the NT knows nothing of Catholic priests or Bishops or Popes or anything of the sort. Jesus and the apostles didn't start a new religion, and religion should have no place among Christian believers.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Great post!!! But I am quite certain that it will have no impact on Marymog's thinking. She has clearly swallowed Catholic doctrine "hook, line, and sinker". It is next to impossible to break through the Catholic veil of misunderstanding. They are enslaved to the teachings of men! If those teachings conflict with the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as they so often do, they will not accept the truth. Alas!

New believers often feel the temptation to "do something" for the Lord. I did, and I still do. I want to do something to impress my Lord. But people like me can fall victim to men who tempt us with religion and ritual and rites and incantations and other pagan practices and some of us fall for it because it seems to answer our hunger to please the Lord.

And even now I can hear the Lord say, "Rest in me. I've done everything already. Trust in me and I will get you there."

It's hard. I know.

 

[Illuminator]

In my view, you wasted your time because you didn't pay attention to what I said. You resisted my thoughts because they might have convinced you of your mistaken views.

You have noticed haven't you, my insistence on Sola Scriptura? What kind of help would I be if I didn't know how to study the scriptures properly? And In my experience, interpretations mistakes arise when details in the text are ignored. We'll get to that in a minute.

You and BofL are both off topic, the thread is about baptism. Sola scriptura is a derailer and a topic of it's own.

Yeah, we talked about proof texting, which is a strategy employed by those who want to see their point of view in the Bible.

But do you honestly not realize when you, yourself give opinions and denials?

BofL has the same right as you do; he backs his "opinions" with scripture. Christianity without consistency isn't Christianity, so tracing the history of doctrines is important because doctrines must be proven to be traced back to the Apostles. Even the most popular anti-Catholic apologists admit the Apostles were not sola scripturists.

Were you paying attention? I was talking about Paul's first letter to Timothy wasn't I?

1Timothy 3:1-2

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, skillful in teaching, ​

​

A celibate is not a husband. Therefore an overseer must be married.

That would rule out Paul, he wasn't married. It also rules out the celibacy of Jesus, which is the basis of priestly celibacy. (which is a discipline, not a doctrine, just as head coverings for women is a discipline, not a doctrine)

Let's look at Titus, if you like.

Titus 1:5-9

5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is beyond reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of indecent behavior or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be beyond reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not overindulging in wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled, righteous, holy, disciplined, 9 holding firmly the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.​

In this context, not only must the overseer be married, his children need to be believers.

Your religion has lied to you.

This is where you don't make sense. If the wife of a bishop dies, Paul is saying not to marry again because of the spiritual relationship with the church becomes undivided, and the widowed bishop is free to serve the community totally without worrying about looking after his wife. "the husband of one wife" is not a mandate to be married, Paul never teaches that anywhere in the NT. According to you, any Protestant elder who single can't be an elder unless he is married. I know of no Protestant church who has such an absurd discriminating policy against single people.

Yes, he is. He must be a husband of one wife.

See above.

Paul's letters to Titus and Timothy stand alone, apart from cultural practices. An overseer must be a husband and a good father and he must have believing children. Why?

Suppose a man came to Titus or Timothy looking for the job of overseer. What will Titus or Timothy ask the man? What's your home-life like? Are you married? Is your personal household organized and in good order? Are your children believers? They will not only interview the man, they will interview his wife and his children. Celibacy is not an option.

Your interpretation is in error because it fails to take the entire passage into account. It ignores sentences and phrases that are significant to the meaning.

I insist, without equivocation or wavering that the NT knows nothing of Catholic priests or Bishops or Popes or anything of the sort.

I insist, without equivocation you think you know about the biblical three-fold office of deacon, priest and bishop, so I invite you to find out what we actually believe, and why. But you don't do that because in your pride you won't abandon false narratives about the nature of the early church, that we disprove with the unanimous consent of Christians who sat at the feet of the Apostles. Not each and every authentic practice made it into the Bible, so to demand scripture for each and every authentic Christian practice is a premise not found anywhere in the Bible.

The unanimous consent of Christians in the early church are in complete harmony with scriptures, so you are forced to deny historical documentation and dismiss it as "opinion". That way you can re-write history to make it fit your 16th century politics, which is subjective, not objective. Or you can ignore authentic historical documentation all together. It's your loss, because nobody knows more theology than the men who received revelation directly from the Apostles (called the ante-Nicene Fathers). Calvin arrogantly rejected all the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch as false, because they disprove his anti-Christian myths about the nature of the early church. A majority of Protestant scholars agree that 7 of the 14 letters are genuine. But there is nothing in the supposed forgeries that contradict the 7 genuine letters.

Jesus and the apostles didn't start a new religion, and religion should have no place among Christian believers.

This attitude about "religion" is so annoying. Sheep stealing TV preachers in the '60's changed the meaning of "religion" into a dirty word to beef up their numbers. Religion basically means mans search for God, it does not mean religion necessitates illiterate zombies. If anything, sola scriptura started a new religion, because it was a complete turn-around of what what accepted as authoritive for 15 centuries.

Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, working together in harmony, is the BIBLICAL rule of faith. It's not a "Catholic" invention, it's God's indestructible design. Analogous to a three legged stool, remove one and the stool collapses. The problem with sola scriptura is that it pits the Bible AGAINST straw man fallacies about the true nature of Tradition. I suggest you put "Tradition" and "Magisterium" in the search provided in my signature and avoid making a fool of yourself.

Let's get back to baptism. Why does the CC accept most non-Catholic baptisms as valid?
Feel free to run from the question like @Grailhunter did.

 

[BreadOfLife]

In my view, you wasted your time because you didn't pay attention to what I said. You resisted my thoughts because they might have convinced you of your mistaken views.

You have noticed haven't you, my insistence on Sola Scriptura? What kind of help would I be if I didn't know how to study the scriptures properly? And In my experience, interpretations mistakes arise when details in the text are ignored. We'll get to that in a minute.

Yeah, we talked about proof texting, which is a strategy employed by those who want to see their point of view in the Bible.

But do you honestly not realize when you, yourself give opinions and denials?

Were you paying attention? I was talking about Paul's first letter to Timothy wasn't I?

1Timothy 3:1-2

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, skillful in teaching, ​

​

A celibate is not a husband. Therefore an overseer must be married.

I ALREADY addressed this in my LAST post.
It wasn't a requirement that they be married at ALL. IT was a requirement that they ONLY had one wife. They were PLYGAMISTS.

Paul himself a celibate, advocates for celibacy amobg the leadershp in 1 Cor 7 - and STRONGLY, I night add, as a more excellent way to serv God.

Let's look at Titus, if you like.

Titus 1:5-9

5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is beyond reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of indecent behavior or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be beyond reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not overindulging in wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled, righteous, holy, disciplined, 9 holding firmly the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.​

In this context, not only must the overseer be married, his children need to be believers.

Your religion has lied to you.

Yes, he is. He must be a husband of one wife.

Paul's letters to Titus and Timothy stand alone, apart from cultural practices. An overseer must be a husband and a good father and he must have believing children. Why?

Suppose a man came to Titus or Timothy looking for the job of overseer. What will Titus or Timothy ask the man? What's your home-life like? Are you married? Is your personal household organized and in good order? Are your children believers? They will not only interview the man, they will interview his wife and his children. Celibacy is not an option.

Your interpretation is in error because it fails to take the entire passage into account. It ignores sentences and phrases that are significant to the meaning.

I insist, without equivocation or wavering that the NT knows nothing of Catholic priests or Bishops or Popes or anything of the sort. Jesus and the apostles didn't start a new religion, and religion should have no place among Christian believers.

I absolutely noticed.

Sola Scriptura is where your entire argument collapses because you have NOT been able to provide the Scriptural proof for it.
In short, the very Scriptures that YOU claim to be out SOLE Authority don't teach sola Scriptura.

Conversely, as I have AMPLY shown, Jesus says that the CHURCH is our final earthly Authority – NOT Scripture (Matt. 16:18, M1tt. 18:15-18, Luke 10-:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23). Scripture is Authoritative – but not our FINAL Authority.

For the first 350 years of the Church’s existence, there was NO official T Canon.
MANY books that are now considered to be apocryphal had been read aloud from pulpits for those first few centuries as “Scripture”.

It took the Authority of the Catholic Church to declare the Canon in 383 at the Synod of Rome.
- 11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).
- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

As for your 39-Book OT Canon – I guarantee you don’t know where that came from - or why it differs from the 46-Book Catholic version . . .

So, the Protestant invention that is Sola Scriptura places an impossible measuring stick on the first 3 centuries of Christianity.
Did they ALL go to Hell because there was no Bible to speak of?

PS – I don’t expect you to provide ONE SHRED of evidence.
You haven’t done it so far – so why break precedent . . .

 

[Illuminator]

As for your 39-Book OT Canon – I guarantee you don’t know where that came from - or why it differs from the 46-Book Catholic version . . .

Yup. There is no evidence of a 39-book OT canon, read aloud in any church as scripture, before the 14th century. Until such evidence is produced, I can safely assert a 66 book canon, which is in itself the written word of God, is not the complete written word of God. This presents an insufferable problem for advocates of skinnier Bible versions.

​

Evangelical Christians who are intellectual are more likely to focus on the Greek and Hebrew Biblical texts, which is valuable indeed. However they are less keen on extra-Biblical sources, and usually not at all keen on philosophy and natural theology.

I suspect some of this goes back to Luther, his emphasis on faith as against reason, and his doctrine of the total depravity of human beings after the Fall.

Catholics in contrast believe that after the Fall, human beings are damaged: we lack sanctifying grace, our wills are weakened, our intellect is dimmed, our emotions or passions often disordered, we are prone to physical weakness and disease, and we suffer concupiscence, the tendency to sin. We are damaged, but not totally wretched. Some good remains in us, even in our fallen state.

Baptism regenerates our souls, brings us justification and initiates the lifelong process of sanctification.

Moreover even natural man, in the unbaptised state, has the use of reason, which can help him to understand the reasons and evidence for the existence of a Creator. This field of study is known as natural theology.

Luther, however, believed that human reason was utterly corrupt and vile, and could not be relied upon to lead us to God. Reason was unnecessary, a dangerous temptation to trust in one’s own resources or works. For Luther, all that was needed for salvation was faith, “sola fide”. (This, I think, is the origin of the "carnal mind" mantra, a polite way of saying "you are an idiot")

Setting faith against reason has left parts of Protestantism with this anti-intellectual frame of mind. Protestant theology is often weak on the natural arguments for God’s existence e.g. Anslem's Five Ways. It lacks a metaphysics, and it has tended to fall victim to rationalist, empiricist and existentialist philosophies in the last three centuries.

Although there are hundreds of different Protestant theologies, few have successfully synthesized faith and reason in the Catholic manner, except for some High Anglican writers like Eric Mascall.

Many Orthodox are not keen on the use of reason in theology, and are wont to accuse Catholics of excessive rationalism and intellectualism. Whilst this may be true of occasional individual theologians, it is not true of Catholicism in its broader tradition.

In the Gospels Jesus commands us to love God “with your whole mind,” as well as with our whole soul and heart and strength. Certainly we should contemplate the mystery in prayer and meditation, but the refusal to examine the truths of Faith humbly and intellectually can be a mask for obscurantism.

by Fr. Francis Marsden, QUORA

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

Water baptism is important today. It shows the need to obey our Lord Jesus Christ in regards to the great commission (Matthew 28:19), and to follow what the apostles did, which was clearly submerging in water in the name of Jesus (Acts 8) (Acts 10). Water baptism is a picture or symbol of death of our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 6). Our old life is gone and buried and our life is hidden with Christ, and we are to walk in newnesses of life (To be in the likeness of His resurrection) (Romans 6).

John the baptist said, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30).

Paul said, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Galatians 2:20).

It’s why we are to deny ourselves, pick up our cross, and follow Jesus.
Death to ourselves is symbolized through our water baptism and it is a picture of Christ dying on the cross for us.
Water baptism is our showing of appreciation of what Christ has done for us when He purged our conscience of our past life of sin (When we accepted Him as our personal Lord and Savior).

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for the opportunity that we can be water baptized.

 

[Illuminator]

In my opinion, the reason there is so much division among non-Catholic Christians regarding baptism is because the exact method is not explicit in the Bible. I have no problem with total emersion, Catholics accept that as a valid method. But even that has to be concluded by inferences, any explicit text are not there. Acceptable methods for baptism is preserved by the Tradition taught by the Apostles by their preaching. The Book of Didache, or, Teaching of the Twelve was written when the Apostles were still alive. It is a valuable historical document explaining how Christians were to baptize the way the Apostles did it. There was no controversy over the contents.

Since it was the first known catechism, it had to measure up to true Apostolic Teaching, which was accepted by everyone everywhere. It couldn't be measured up to scripture because there was no Bible to measure it against. Everyone could spot heretics if they taught something the Apostles didn't preach or write on. I imagine they caused fist fights. That's why they had councils, to discern a heretic from a wanker, or deem him a threat to the social order and refute it the way Paul did: with anathemas and excommunications. Ip so facto excommunications occur immediately when a person cuts themselves off from God due to serious sin, no paper work required. Formal excommunication is rare, usually reserved for off-the-rails theologians and any rebellious clergy regardless of rank. The CC holds the right to declare a heresy only as it applies to Catholics. Hostile anti-Catholics are on their own.

I am discovering more and more that hostile anti-Catholics are so angry they end up anti-Protestant on the slippery slope of Modalism

 

[CadyandZoe]

You and BofL are both off topic, the thread is about baptism. Sola scriptura is a derailer and a topic of it's own.

And yet, you don't hesitate to keep the topic of Sola Scriptura going. hmm.

BofL has the same right as you do; he backs his "opinions" with scripture.

So what? Did I say otherwise?

Christianity without consistency isn't Christianity, so tracing the history of doctrines is important because doctrines must be proven to be traced back to the Apostles.

Consistency of the Faith is found in the Bible, which is an inspired and infallible source of God's will. Consistency isn't the highest value among the followers of Christ because as we can see from the RCC an enforced consistency can still be constantly wrong.

Even the most popular anti-Catholic apologists admit the Apostles were not sola scripturists.

Why do I care? Consensus is not the guarantee of truth.

That would rule out Paul, he wasn't married.

Paul wasn't an overseer or an elder.

It also rules out the celibacy of Jesus, which is the basis of priestly celibacy.

Incorrect. The basis of priestly celibacy is easily traced back to Augustine's struggle with lust. It has nothing at all to do with Biblical exegesis. Paul told you that forbidding marriage was a false doctrine and yet you continue to promote celibacy. Your religion teaches false doctrine. The reason why Jesus never married wasn't his role as the Son of God; the reason for his celibacy was his knowledge that he was going to die for the sins of his people. A righteous man, whether Jesus or any other righteous man, would never marry a woman knowing that he was going to die at 30 years of age.

This is where you don't make sense.

You are confusing Catholic rationale with what Paul actually said. Paul never said anything about a "spiritual relationship with the church." The overseer will watch over the local church, not marry it.

If the wife of a bishop dies, Paul is saying not to marry again because of the spiritual relationship with the church becomes undivided, and the widowed bishop is free to serve the community totally without worrying about looking after his wife. "the husband of one wife" is not a mandate to be married,

Agreed, It isn't a mandate to get married. It remains as a prerequisite for the job of overseer. Paul isn't commanding men to get married; rather, he is commanding Timothy to restrict his field of candidates to married men who maintain a well-run household.

According to you, any Protestant elder who single can't be an elder unless he is married. I know of no Protestant church who has such an absurd discriminating policy against single people.

Why does that matter? Remember, I believe in Sola Scriptura, not religious consensus. The Bible has recorded the inspired truth. If a protestant church or demonination doesn't obey the scriptures, that isn't the fault of Sola Scriptura.

I insist, without equivocation you think you know about the biblical three-fold office of deacon, priest and bishop,

There is NO such thing as a "three-fold office" of deacon, priest and bishop. It certainly isn't a Biblical concept.

And the idea of a priest is false doctrine. Jesus is our priest and he is our only priest.
Second, Jesus told you to never to allow anyone on earth call you "father" (Matthew 23:9) and yet you refer to the priests of your religion "father." Why? Because you obey the Catholic religion, not the teaching of Jesus.

But you don't do that because in your pride you won't abandon false narratives about the nature of the early church, that we disprove with the unanimous consent of Christians who sat at the feet of the Apostles.

Try arguing from a common source, rather than from a disputable source. I grant the ECF's no crediblity, they have nothing at all to say to me and can add nothing at all to my understanding. As I said, a lot of people sat at the feet of the Apostles and a lot of them veered off course. Sitting at the feet of the apostles means nothing.

Not each and every authentic practice made it into the Bible, so to demand scripture for each and every authentic Christian practice is a premise not found anywhere in the Bible.

Only the Bible is the inspired word of God. Whatever practices didn't make it into the Bible are of no concern to me.
All you got is smoke and mirrors dude.

The unanimous consent of Christians in the early church are in complete harmony with scriptures, so you are forced to deny historical documentation and dismiss it as "opinion".

Again, The truth of a proposition does not rest on or depend on unanimity. There is nothing you can say to me to convince me that the ECF's are inspired writers.

It's your loss, because nobody knows more theology than the men who received revelation directly from the Apostles (called the ante-Nicene Fathers). Calvin arrogantly rejected all the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch as false, because they disprove his anti-Christian myths about the nature of the early church. A majority of Protestant scholars agree that 7 of the 14 letters are genuine. But there is nothing in the supposed forgeries that contradict the 7 genuine letters.

Patristics is a dead end.

This attitude about "religion" is so annoying.

I understand why it might annoy you, given the fact that my statements about religion challenge you. No one likes to think that they were dupped or that someone deceived them or that everything you know is wrong. Just take small bites; you'll get through it.

Sheep stealing TV preachers in the '60's changed the meaning of "religion" into a dirty word to beef up their numbers.

So what? Guilt by association is another fallacious argument.

Religion basically means mans search for God, it does not mean religion necessitates illiterate zombies.

Religion is NOT man's search for God. Those who practice a religion already believe that God exists. The purpose of the praxis is to force or induce the god to bless him and keep him safe from enemy attack. Catholicism is paganism in religious garb.

If anything, sola scriptura started a new religion, because it was a complete turn-around of what what accepted as authoritive for 15 centuries.

Well, in the hands of sinners can anything remain untwisted? If all religion in the world were removed, faith would remain.

Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, working together in harmony, is the BIBLICAL rule of faith.

Don't confuse Catholic with Biblical.

The problem with sola scriptura is that it pits the Bible AGAINST straw man fallacies about the true nature of Tradition.

There are no problems, only challenges. And I agree, Sola Scriptura challenges Catholic authority and dogma.

Let's get back to baptism. Why does the CC accept most non-Catholic baptisms as valid?

Who cares? Talk to someone who cares what a Catholic affirms or allows.

Feel free to run from the question like @Grailhunter did.

Not running. Simply waiting for relevance.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I ALREADY addressed this in my LAST post.
It wasn't a requirement that they be married at ALL. IT was a requirement that they ONLY had one wife. They were PLYGAMISTS.

I wish you would address the obvious mistake in your reasoning. How can the husband of one wife be a celibate?

Paul himself a celibate, advocates for celibacy amobg the leadershp in 1 Cor 7 - and STRONGLY, I night add, as a more excellent way to serv God.

Did Paul command celibacy or recommend it? He recommended it. And what is the basis for his recommendation?

1Corithians 7:26

I think, then, that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. ​

Please consider the entire context in your own studies.

Sola Scriptura is where your entire argument collapses because you have NOT been able to provide the Scriptural proof for it.

I guess you are in a double bind then? heh? You can't defend your position without an appeal to the scriptures. [Fascinating.]

In short, the very Scriptures that YOU claim to be out SOLE Authority don't teach sola Scriptura.

Of course, they wouldn't. Even if they did, the argument would be circular. I maintain that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are the sole authority, and that the only inspired witness to what the Father and the Son taught is in the Bible.

My belief is based on the nature of God; he never lies, and he never changes his mind. So then, an evaluation of any writing or tradition must begin and end with prior revelation. No prophet would contradict another prophet and no apostle would contradict another apostle.

Secondly, Peter already said that we have enough teaching to lead a godly life. I might seek the advice of a trusted elder, but if that elder contradicts a prophet or an apostle, I am not obligated to follow the elder's advice.

The same is true of Catholic dogma. If Catholic dogma contradicts Jesus, the apostles or prophets, I am not obligated to obey Catholic dogma.

Conversely, as I have AMPLY shown, Jesus says that the CHURCH is our final earthly Authority – NOT Scripture (Matt. 16:18, M1tt. 18:15-18, Luke 10-:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23). Scripture is Authoritative – but not our FINAL Authority.

Sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation.

For the first 350 years of the Church’s existence, there was NO official T Canon.
MANY books that are now considered to be apocryphal had been read aloud from pulpits for those first few centuries as “Scripture”.

It took the Authority of the Catholic Church to declare the Canon in 383 at the Synod of Rome.
- 11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).
- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

As for your 39-Book OT Canon – I guarantee you don’t know where that came from - or why it differs from the 46-Book Catholic version . . .

So, the Protestant invention that is Sola Scriptura places an impossible measuring stick on the first 3 centuries of Christianity.
Did they ALL go to Hell because there was no Bible to speak of?

PS – I don’t expect you to provide ONE SHRED of evidence.
You haven’t done it so far – so why break precedent . . .

And yet you can't help yourself. You ask anyway.

You raise a good point.

This may be shocking to you, but if someone like me actually believes in Sola Scriptura, (and I do) then one must also believe that the canon is NOT fixed by decree of an Official Council. If that were true, then it wouldn't be "sola" would it?

I am not about to toss out books of the Bible, yet, but I am free to toss one out if I find evidence that it contradicts revealed, inspired, scripture. If I find that a book isn't likely to be authentic, I am free to ignore that book. Or if I find that another book, outside the official canon IS authentic, I am free to accept that book.

Now, I have not rejected a book inside the canon; or accepted one outside the canon, and this state of affairs is likely not to change. All I'm saying is that my belief in Sola Scriptura doesn't depend on the opinion of a church council. If it did, it wouldn't be "sola."

 

[BreadOfLife]

I wish you would address the obvious mistake in your reasoning. How can the husband of one wife be a celibate?

Did Paul command celibacy or recommend it? He recommended it. And what is the basis for his recommendation?

1Corithians 7:26

I think, then, that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. ​

WHO said the husband of one wife should be celibate??
CELIBATE Bishops should remain celibate.

In the Latin Rite, Bishops and Proests are celibate - nut NOT in the Eastern Rites. The Latin Rite takes the advice of Paul in 1 Cor. 7, who said that a celibate man or woman can serve GoD i a more excellent way.

Please consider the entire context in your own studies.

I guess you are in a double bind then? heh? You can't defend your position without an appeal to the scriptures. [Fascinating.]

HUH??

The Scripture are DEVOID of the false teaching that is Sola Scriptura.
NOWHERE is it taught. I’m not “appealing to” the Scriptures – I an showing the absolute ABSNCE of this Protestant invention within them.

Bottom Line:
YOU can’t show it because it AIN’T there . . .

Of course, they wouldn't. Even if they did, the argument would be circular. I maintain that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are the sole authority, and that the only inspired witness to what the Father and the Son taught is in the Bible.

My belief is based on the nature of God; he never lies, and he never changes his mind. So then, an evaluation of any writing or tradition must begin and end with prior revelation. No prophet would contradict another prophet and no apostle would contradict another apostle.

Secondly, Peter already said that we have enough teaching to lead a godly life. I might seek the advice of a trusted elder, but if that elder contradicts a prophet or an apostle, I am not obligated to follow the elder's advice.

The same is true of Catholic dogma. If Catholic dogma contradicts Jesus, the apostles or prophets, I am not obligated to obey Catholic dogma.

Sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation.

If you pull ALL of your eggs in that statement – then you MUST recognize and accept that the Church is your FINAL earthy Authority because GOD said so – and He doesn’t change His mind, right? (Matt 16:16-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23)

So - whether YOU agree or not - this is what your"SOLE" Authority says . . .

And yet you can't help yourself. You ask anyway.

You raise a good point.

This may be shocking to you, but if someone like me actually believes in Sola Scriptura, (and I do) then one must also believe that the canon is NOT fixed by decree of an Official Council. If that were true, then it wouldn't be "sola" would it?

I am not about to toss out books of the Bible, yet, but I am free to toss one out if I find evidence that it contradicts revealed, inspired, scripture. If I find that a book isn't likely to be authentic, I am free to ignore that book. Or if I find that another book, outside the official canon IS authentic, I am free to accept that book.

Now, I have not rejected a book inside the canon; or accepted one outside the canon, and this state of affairs is likely not to change. All I'm saying is that my belief in Sola Scriptura doesn't depend on the opinion of a church council. If it did, it wouldn't be "sola."

That’s quite an arrogant statement, coming from a little human being like yourself.

You’re “free” to ignore ANY Book you want – but you’ll just be ignoring GOD and His Word, which we ALL know is Jesus (John 1:1).

The fact is that 39-Book Protestant OT Canon YOU adhere to has SEVEN Books and portions of Daniel and Esther removed from it. The original 46-Book Canon was studied from by Jesus and the NT Writers. There are almost 200 quotes and references to those Books on the pages of the NT.

For example:
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Rabbis established a rabbinical school in the Jewish city of at Jabneh (or Jamnia). It became center for Jewish political and religious political thought. Because the Temple had been destroyed in 70 AD – this school led by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137) redefined certain aspects of Judaism until the Temple could be restored.

One of the things discussed was use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) by early Christians.

They decided to eject 7 Books (and portions of Esther and Daniel) that they felt were “uninspired”. They provided a new Greek translation because the early Christians were converting the Jews using the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 years before the birth of Christ. According to historical sources, the rabbinical gathering at Jabneh was not even an "official" council with binding authority to make such a decision. It can be clearly shown that Jesus and the Apostles studied and quoted from these 7 Books. In the New Testament, we see almost 200 references to them.

The main advocate for removing the 7 Deuterocanonical Books was Rabbi Akiba, who was also known for proclaiming that a man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the “real” Messiah during the 2nd Jewish Revolt (circa 132 AD). It was during THIS time that the Jewish Canon had still been an OPEN Canon during the life of Christ was closed.

So, the Protestant Fathers chose to go with a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba).

This is who Protestants have chosen to follow instead of Christ’s Church, on whom He bestowed supreme earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Luther also had problems with many New Testament Books, which he sought to remove. The Book of Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude and the Book of Revelation were ALL on the chopping block. He referred to the Epistle of James as the “Epistle of Straw” because it stressed the importance of works, which he rejected. If it had NOT been for the urging of his contemporaries – men like Philip Melanchton – Protestant Bibles would have been MUCH thinner.

 

[Jim B]

I wish you would address the obvious mistake in your reasoning. How can the husband of one wife be a celibate?

Did Paul command celibacy or recommend it? He recommended it. And what is the basis for his recommendation?

1Corithians 7:26

I think, then, that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. ​

Please consider the entire context in your own studies.

I guess you are in a double bind then? heh? You can't defend your position without an appeal to the scriptures. [Fascinating.]

Of course, they wouldn't. Even if they did, the argument would be circular. I maintain that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are the sole authority, and that the only inspired witness to what the Father and the Son taught is in the Bible.

My belief is based on the nature of God; he never lies, and he never changes his mind. So then, an evaluation of any writing or tradition must begin and end with prior revelation. No prophet would contradict another prophet and no apostle would contradict another apostle.

Secondly, Peter already said that we have enough teaching to lead a godly life. I might seek the advice of a trusted elder, but if that elder contradicts a prophet or an apostle, I am not obligated to follow the elder's advice.

The same is true of Catholic dogma. If Catholic dogma contradicts Jesus, the apostles or prophets, I am not obligated to obey Catholic dogma.

Sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation.

And yet you can't help yourself. You ask anyway.

You raise a good point.

This may be shocking to you, but if someone like me actually believes in Sola Scriptura, (and I do) then one must also believe that the canon is NOT fixed by decree of an Official Council. If that were true, then it wouldn't be "sola" would it?

I am not about to toss out books of the Bible, yet, but I am free to toss one out if I find evidence that it contradicts revealed, inspired, scripture. If I find that a book isn't likely to be authentic, I am free to ignore that book. Or if I find that another book, outside the official canon IS authentic, I am free to accept that book.

Now, I have not rejected a book inside the canon; or accepted one outside the canon, and this state of affairs is likely not to change. All I'm saying is that my belief in Sola Scriptura doesn't depend on the opinion of a church council. If it did, it wouldn't be "sola."

Catholics (and some others, perhaps) make a big deal about sola scriptura. There are, of course, problems with their reasoning.

There are five "solas": 1) Christians are saved by grace alone, 2) through faith alone, 3) in Christ alone, 4) as revealed by Scripture alone, 5) to the glory of God alone.

They take exception to #4 only. Why? Because their clergy want them to abide by their teachings, which may differ from Scripture. The idea is: don't rely on what the word of God says, instead rely on what I tell you. Imagine!!!

 

[Illuminator]

And yet, you don't hesitate to keep the topic of Sola Scriptura going. hmm.

You are the one who keeps bring up the off topic "sola scriptura".

So what? Did I say otherwise?

Consistency of the Faith is found in the Bible, which is an inspired and infallible source of God's will. Consistency isn't the highest value among the followers of Christ because as we can see from the RCC an enforced consistency can still be constantly wrong.

Consistency of faith is found in PEOPLE. There was no "Bible" as we know it until the 4th century, a fact you can't seem to grasp. Truth is embraced, it cannot be "enforced". Since you can't disprove the consistency of authentic beliefs found in the general consensus of the earliest Christians, you reject it. How convenient.

Why do I care? Consensus is not the guarantee of truth.

Because your system of faith has no consensus. Endless division proves that.

Paul wasn't an overseer or an elder.

Every Christian on the planet accepts Paul as an Apostle, commissioned by Jesus directly. You are some individualized weird offshoot that even the most radical fundamentalists would disagree with.

Incorrect. The basis of priestly celibacy is easily traced back to Augustine's struggle with lust.

Incorrect. The basis of priestly celibacy is the celibacy of Jesus, nothing to do with Augustine..

It has nothing at all to do with Biblical exegesis. Paul told you that forbidding marriage was a false doctrine and yet you continue to promote celibacy.

Forbidding marriage was a false doctrine of the Gnostics. Paul recommended celibacy for full time "fellow workers" of the church as he was celibate. Paul is not teaching "forbidding marriage" against himself, so there is something seriously wrong with your private interpretation.

Your religion teaches false doctrine. The reason why Jesus never married wasn't his role as the Son of God; the reason for his celibacy was his knowledge that he was going to die for the sins of his people. A righteous man, whether Jesus or any other righteous man, would never marry a woman knowing that he was going to die at 30 years of age.

Right. Jesus never married. That is the basis of priestly celibacy that you refuse to understand.

You are confusing Catholic rationale with what Paul actually said. Paul never said anything about a "spiritual relationship with the church." The overseer will watch over the local church, not marry it.

Then you fail to understand why Jesus was celibate.

Agreed, It isn't a mandate to get married. It remains as a prerequisite for the job of overseer. Paul isn't commanding men to get married; rather, he is commanding Timothy to restrict his field of candidates to married men who maintain a well-run household.

No, he is not. Widowed bishops are not candidates for the priesthood, they are already priests. "Husband of one wife" rules out re-marriage for widowed bishops. This has always been the case for Catholics and Orthodox, a consistent discipline (not a doctrine) going back to the Paul, as history proves, that you arrogantly deny.

Why does that matter? Remember, I believe in Sola Scriptura, not religious consensus. The Bible has recorded the inspired truth. If a protestant church or demonination doesn't obey the scriptures, that isn't the fault of Sola Scriptura.

If it were not for general consensus of the first 3 centuries, you would have no Bible in the first place; another fact you arrogantly deny.

 

[Illuminator]

There is NO such thing as a "three-fold office" of deacon, priest and bishop. It certainly isn't a Biblical concept.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

Not a biblical concept???

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This nontechnical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term “minister” is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or nonordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.
Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1), even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.
Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.
As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure. Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.
Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of bishops, priests, and deacons:

I'm sorry you have nothing to do with the the Church of 110 A.D. when the Apostle John was still alive, to whom the bishop of Antioch was subject to.​

And the idea of a priest is false doctrine. Jesus is our priest and he is our only priest.

Jesus is our only High Priest. The denial of the ministerial priesthood does violence to Scripture, Tradition, and all of Christian history.

Second, Jesus told you to never to allow anyone on earth call you "father" (Matthew 23:9) and yet you refer to the priests of your religion "father." Why? Because you obey the Catholic religion, not the teaching of Jesus.

We don't commit intellectual suicide. Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.”
1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.” You need to correct Paul.
If you think by calling our priests "father" we are calling them "God", your interpretation of Matthew 23:9 reflects brain damage.

Try arguing from a common source, rather than from a disputable source. I grant the ECF's no crediblity, they have nothing at all to say to me and can add nothing at all to my understanding. As I said, a lot of people sat at the feet of the Apostles and a lot of them veered off course. Sitting at the feet of the apostles means nothing.

By your own words, you give no credibility to the authentic beliefs and practices of the early church, who readily refuted those who veered off course. Sitting at the feet of the apostles means nothing because private opinion trumps everything, even your own respected scholars. Deification of the self is the worst form of idolatry.

Only the Bible is the inspired word of God. Whatever practices didn't make it into the Bible are of no concern to me.
All you got is smoke and mirrors dude.

If it weren't for the Tradition of the Episcopate (that you arrogantly deny), you would have no Bible. What is no concern to you is self defeating.

Again, The truth of a proposition does not rest on or depend on unanimity. There is nothing you can say to me to convince me that the ECF's are inspired writers.

Please, stop with the straw man fallacy, nobody ever claimed the ECF's are inspired writers. They had the authority to discern inspired books from false books by comparing it with Apostolic Teaching when there was no Bible. Apostolic Teaching encompasses both the inspired oral preaching and the written words of the Apostles. You have no means of preserving all that was orally taught by the Apostles because you reject its divine protection.

Patristics is a dead end.

Patristics is the democracy of the dead

Catholicism is paganism in religious garb.

The standard flaming zinger used when your false claims are exposed. The damage caused by Alexander Hislop and succeeding Hislopites cannot be underestimated. "Catholicism is paganism" is a stupid canard that has been refuted a million times.

Search

Search the world’s largest database of answers about the Catholic faith.

www.catholic.com

Well, in the hands of sinners can anything remain untwisted? If all religion in the world were removed, faith would remain.

Don't confuse Catholic with Biblical.

There are no problems, only challenges. And I agree, Sola Scriptura challenges Catholic authority and dogma.

Sola scriptura challenges everybody's authority, starting when Calvin disagreed with Luther, who were both sola scripturists. But you don't get it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

WHO said the husband of one wife should be celibate??

No one. That's the point. According to Catholic Dogma, it is forbidden for Bishops to marry, which is contrary to Paul's teaching.

CELIBATE Bishops should remain celibate.

According to Paul, a celibate man can not become a bishop.

In the Latin Rite, Bishops and Proests are celibate - nut NOT in the Eastern Rites. The Latin Rite takes the advice of Paul in 1 Cor. 7, who said that a celibate man or woman can serve GoD i a more excellent way.

Voluntarily, yes.

The Scripture are DEVOID of the false teaching that is Sola Scriptura.

Peter said that we have ALL that we need for godliness.

NOWHERE is it taught. I’m not “appealing to” the Scriptures – I an showing the absolute ABSNCE of this Protestant invention within them.

The Scriptures don't need to teach what is already true by definition.

Bottom Line:
YOU can’t show it because it AIN’T there . . .

I don't need to show it.

If you pull ALL of your eggs in that statement – then you MUST recognize and accept that the Church is your FINAL earthy Authority because GOD said so – and He doesn’t change His mind, right? (Matt 16:16-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23)

The RCC is not the church.

So - whether YOU agree or not - this is what your"SOLE" Authority says . . .

That’s quite an arrogant statement, coming from a little human being like yourself.

Ever read the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax collector. What is Jesus point? The Pharisee did NOT go home justified because he believed he was NOT like other men. If I am a little human being so is everyone else.

You don't seem to realize the question at hand during those councils. These men weren't asking "what do we want in our Bible?" They were answering, "what writings has the body of Christ always accepted as scripture?"

You’re “free” to ignore ANY Book you want – but you’ll just be ignoring GOD and His Word, which we ALL know is Jesus (John 1:1).

I don't think this follows from my statement.

The fact is that 39-Book Protestant OT Canon YOU adhere to has SEVEN Books and portions of Daniel and Esther removed from it. The original 46-Book Canon was studied from by Jesus and the NT Writers. There are almost 200 quotes and references to those Books on the pages of the NT.

I understand, you want to argue that since my Bible was assembled by a council, that I am not relying on scripture alone. I get that. But Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that I am relying on scripture alone; it means what I said it means. The Bible stands above any other claim to authority in the Body of Christ save the Holy Spirit and Jesus himself. THIS the Bible DOES teach.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Consistency of faith is found in PEOPLE.

I disagree. People are sinners, with mixed motives. Revealed truth never changes.

There was no "Bible" as we know it until the 4th century, a fact you can't seem to grasp.

Oh, I get it. I don't find that point to be as significant as you do.

Truth is embraced, it cannot be "enforced".

Tell that to those who suffered at the hands of the inquisitor.

Since you can't disprove the consistency of authentic beliefs found in the general consensus of the earliest Christians, you reject it.

I reject it for the reasons I said. Are you accustomed to putting words in the mouths of others?

Because your system of faith has no consensus. Endless division proves that.

Consensus is not a means to truth.

Every Christian on the planet accepts Paul as an Apostle, commissioned by Jesus directly. You are some individualized weird offshoot that even the most radical fundamentalists would disagree with.

So what? Did I say he wasn't an apostle?

Incorrect. The basis of priestly celibacy is the celibacy of Jesus, nothing to do with Augustine.

Paul told you that forbidding marriage is a false doctrine.

Forbidding marriage was a false doctrine of the Gnostics. Paul recommended celibacy for full time "fellow workers" of the church as he was celibate.

He tells you that men should follow his lead because of the current distress. The distress is over.

Paul is not teaching "forbidding marriage" against himself, so there is something seriously wrong with your private interpretation.

Paul told you that in latter times, people would teach false doctrine and he gave special mention to the forbidding of marriage just as your church teaches.

Right. Jesus never married. That is the basis of priestly celibacy that you refuse to understand.

You have been lied to.

No, he is not. Widowed bishops are not candidates for the priesthood, they are already priests. "Husband of one wife" rules out re-marriage for widowed bishops. This has always been the case for Catholics and Orthodox, a consistent discipline (not a doctrine) going back to the Paul, as history proves, that you arrogantly deny.

Paul never deals with widowed Bishops. He tells Timothy that an overseer is to be the husband of one wife. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul is talking about a man's marital status at the time the man begins his ministry. But don't let it escape your notice that the prospect is also being judged by his children and how well he runs his household. This you ignore.

If it were not for general consensus of the first 3 centuries, you would have no Bible in the first place; another fact you arrogantly deny.

Silence is not a denial. I simply ignore irrelevant information.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

Not a biblical concept???

No, you can repeat your dogma all you want. But as you might guess, I don't accept your dogma as authoritative.

Jesus is our only High Priest. The denial of the ministerial priesthood does violence to Scripture, Tradition, and all of Christian history.

There is no scriptural basis for a priesthood. And I am purposely challenging your tradition. I don't care if your tradition was around for centuries. It is simply fale.

We don't commit intellectual suicide. Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.”
1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.” You need to correct Paul.
If you think by calling our priests "father" we are calling them "God", your interpretation of Matthew 23:9 reflects brain damage.

I sense that you are unsure of your position.

By your own words, you give no credibility to the authentic beliefs and practices of the early church, who readily refuted those who veered off course.

I give no credence to the ECF's which is typical grist for the Catholic mill.

Sitting at the feet of the apostles means nothing because private opinion trumps everything, even your own respected scholars.

As I said, many of those who sat at the feet of the apostles veered off course which is what prompted many of the epistles.

Deification of the self is the worst form of idolatry.

Deification of the self can be corrected. Deification of the institution can be fatal.

If it weren't for the Tradition of the Episcopate (that you arrogantly deny), you would have no Bible.

I disagree. I would have all of the original writings and more. My work sorting through them would be a lot harder, but not impossible

Please, stop with the straw man fallacy, nobody ever claimed the ECF's are inspired writers.

Then stop mentioning them.

Patristics is the democracy of the dead

Patristics is a waste of time.

The standard flaming zinger used when your false claims are exposed. The damage caused by Alexander Hislop and succeeding Hislopites cannot be underestimated. "Catholicism is paganism" is a stupid canard that has been refuted a million times.

I don't doubt it. And yet, you still don't listen.

Sola scriptura challenges everybody's authority, starting when Calvin disagreed with Luther, who were both sola scripturists. But you don't get it.

I get it. Sinners can't get along. Big surprise?

 

[Illuminator]

No, you can repeat your dogma all you want. But as you might guess, I don't accept your dogma as authoritative.

I'm not repeating dogma, I am using "Bible alone" to prove the reality of deacon, priest, bishop, that you don't accept. You refuse to be reasoned with. Not only that, celibacy is not a dogma or a doctrine. There are plenty of married Catholic clergy, even in the one Latin rite where it is mandated. Your hostility as as bad as your ignorance.

I challenge you to key in any question or topic with one click of the key board. See my signature. Then refute the answers, by using the quote feature, with scripture. But you won't do that because it's too much work. You belong in the sub-group called "The Lazy Anti-Catholic". You follow reformist teaching while denouncing them. It's a kind of schizophrenic spirituality and it ain't healthy.

I've been on forums a long time. You post the same idiotic claims against the CC as do atheists, JW's, SDA's, the poisonous Hislopites and legions of others. You are not aware of the pattern you fit into.

Anti-Catholicism (Index Page For Apologist Dave Armstrong)

Collection of papers by Dave Armstrong refuting anti-Catholicism: the absurd, self-defeating notions that Catholicism is not Christianity at all.

www.patheos.com

You are too angry to stay on any topic.

 

[Illuminator]

Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

Some Christians hold to the belief that Spirit baptism replaces water baptism. I recently held to this belief but I reverted back to my old position that we are to water baptize others and be water baptized.

There is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Not two. A release of what is already there is not a baptism. I'll go with what Jesus said, water and spirit. Having a dynamic experience with the HS is a good thing, but it's not "born again" according to Jesus' simple definition. Having a moral turnaround at a church service a good thing, but still it's still not "born again". I'll stick with John 3:5. Jesus is not confused.

For the third time, "Why does the Catholic Church accept most non-Catholic baptisms as valid?" It looks like I will have to answer the question myself, since it seems to scare the critics.

 

[Illuminator]

Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

Some Christians hold to the belief that Spirit baptism replaces water baptism. I recently held to this belief but I reverted back to my old position that we are to water baptize others and be water baptized.

On Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Sacramental Grace

The concept of “baptism in the Spirit” must not be confused with “another act of sacramental grace” as is taught in many Pentecostal charismatic circles.

Fortunately, few Catholics mistake that the “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” as understood by the charismatic movement, is an act of sacramental grace. The pastors of the Church have, on this point, published its proper definition: that “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is not another act of sacramental grace but rather the “personally experienced actualization of grace already sacramentally received, principally in baptism and confirmation.”

Charism gifts building up the Church – BRO IGNATIUS MARY

JULY 26, 2013 Charism gifts building up the Church1 (Excerpt from the Rule of St. Michael) 2004, Order of the Legion of St. Michael, www.saint-mike.org A detailed evaluation and review of the Chari…

ephesians511blog.com