this might be a stupid question but you know the 7 sacraments (or however many there are), does it actually say them all in the bible?
sacraments
- Thread starter Lyn
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
An Opinion about rituals "in religions:"When a person, or religious organization, keeps invented sacraments, then it is they're keeping of the sacraments they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why keep those invented sacraments?And when one goes to a confessional and tells a "priest" about their sins, then it is their going to the confessional and doing the confession ritual and penance that they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why not go directly to God, from within the heart, through Christ for the forgiveness of sins as Christ taught?And when one goes to a series of rituals, then it is their participating in the rituals that they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why go to rituals?Christ never taught anything about ritualistic sacraments, or going to confessionals. He taught faith. It is only the flesh, seeking to feel it has earned its spiritual relationship with God that comes up with the formulation "these are the things I do because of faith." Christ's teaching was that faith is not about man "doing." It is faith in what God has, and will, do.Just so that everyone knows I'm not singling out the Catholics, it would be entirely possible to write exactly what I just written, only substituting the ritual and legalism details of any protestant denomination for the mass/ritualistic sacraments/confessional part, and the doctrinal point would be just as valid.Christ did indeed teach that salvation and relationship with God is based on faith and only faith.It IS the Catholic Church that invented all the nonsense about Mary being a lifelong virgin, and that one prays to her to get healing, favors, and whatever. And it IS the Catholic Church, which elects "saints", and says you can pray to them for special favors; isn't it? I don't remember Christ teaching anything about praying to Mary or "saints". And it IS the catholic church that teaches that you can't be forgiven for sins without coming to its confessional booth, telling your sins to someone it calls a "priest" and doing whatever penance that "priest" tells them to do; right? That is the Catholic Church, isn't it? Or is the church that does all that stuff some other church and I just got confused for a second? This isn't a stereotype, it is just fact. Is the Catholic Church now teaching that one simply goes to God in personal prayer about sin and is forgiven based on the perfection and efficacy of Christ's work on the cross? If that's what they're teaching these days it would be the first I've heard about it.If the rituals, ceremonies, legalisms, and taboos the Catholic Church started inventing in the middle of the first millennium are just a natural outgrowth of Christ's teaching (the expression of faith, if you will) then why would not the rituals and ceremonies and taboos and legalisms of any other church be the same? For instance, the day of Pentecost was shortly after Christ's death and resurrection and we are told people were speaking in tongues, etc. So why would it not be valid for Pentecostal churches to say: well, what we do goes all the way back to the days of Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, so when we "speak in tongues" it is simply a natural outgrowth of Christ's ministry and what early Christians did. Therefore, you can't be saved or have a relationship with God unless you join our church and do this "speaking in tongues" thing.Although most protestant denominations only practice the concept in part, the orthodox (or doctrinal) Christian concept is that all believers in Christ are priests with Jesus Christ as our intermediary with God. Forgiveness for our sins is based on Christ's work on the cross and our faith in Christ and his work. That is why (doctrinally speaking) we can approach God directly in our personal prayers and receive forgiveness for our sins.The Catholic Church, AND OTHERS, have taken this concept rooted in grace and turned it into a system called religion whereby humans earn forgiveness from God by going to a particular place (the confessional), "confessing" sins to someone whose business they are not and then performing some more works ("penance") to complete the business of earning God's forgiveness. The concept at the root of it all is that Christ's work on the cross was incomplete or a failure, and so we have to add our works to Christ's work to make them complete. Nothing could be more out of keeping with the Christian doctrine Paul wrote, which teaches that Christ's work on the cross was complete, perfect and perfectly efficacious.I will say this, instead of simply changing out a protestant system of works for a catholic system of works a person really should consider Christ's message of faith.A person can reach the point of exasperation, trying to figure out the un-figurable (which church's or denominational system is the right system to please and impress God). But Christ's message of relationship with God through faith makes all the figuring unnecessary.I appreciate and agree with the orientation of many posts: the intended grace nature of what the Catholic Church has termed "sacraments" and turned into empty rituals, the spiritual (rather than physical) nature of Christ's church, the idea of all religion as schemes for pleasing God with the energy of the flesh rather than faith, the concept of salvation through faith alone rather than a program of religious works, rituals and observing legalisms, taboos and "sacraments."I understand that the antiquity of the traditions and rituals the Catholic Church has invented appeal to many, (at least more so than those traditions and rituals invented by the evangelical/fundamentalist protestant churches), but that is their choice. However, these things would come between Jesus and I. Every church and denomination has "Jesus" and "faith" and "Christ" readily rolling off its collective tongue. But Christ taught that just because one says "Lord, Lord" that doesn't mean that they will have a relationship with God, but only those who do the will of God - and Christ taught that the will of God is his creations responding to him in faith.I am where I am now because of a volitional choice to respond to Christ's message of faith with faith. And I find that message of faith very comforting indeed: a relationship with, and justification and righteousness before, the God who created my soul based only on my faith in the savior he sent for me (and the guidance of God's own spirit thrown in (at no extra charge whatsoever). All this without having to work, work, work at rituals and taboo observance and magic worked by "saints" and the "virgin Mary" and all the rest of that nonsensical claptrap. Instead "doing" what Christ taught us to do; believe on the one whom God sent and rest and be relieved of our burdens by God's grace.(Nor any need to search and hunt and figure out and research which church hierarchy's claims to have "truth" or "validity")I can't get more comfortable than that, and why anyone would choose the works route is beyond me (except I can understand their flesh screaming at them, "ok, so now what do I have to do?")This is not rocket science. On the one hand you have Christ and Paul clearly teaching faith alone and on the other hand you have the Catholic Church teaching mass attendance, compulsory confession, worshipping Mary, the Lord's table sharing turned into a system of magic, "last rites" for salvation, and on and on. And various other churches teaching a relationship with God based on emotional ecstatic, moral purity of the flesh, ritual observance, etc.It really doesn't seem like much of a choice to me, or is it anything that requires great academic diligence. I prefer Christ's message of faith.EndI owe a great deal of thanks to a friend named "Don" (on Dave's Christian forum) for this article. His input in this writing has given me much comfort and direction.Richard
Richard,I'm not going to unravel all the points you make, but you are simply wrong about rituals and sacraments. Let me take one simple example - the foundational sacrament of Baptism, considered foundational by not just Catholics and Orthodox, but many Protestant denominations as well.Lets look at scripture first:In John's gospel we read “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptised.” (Jn 3:22) and “They came to John and said to him, Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptising, and all are going to him.” (Jn 3:26). So Jesus and his disciples baptised. Jesus himself says “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19) and “The one who believes and is baptised will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk16:16)Go, therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you (Mt 28:19,20)SO Jesus instructs his followers to baptise disciples. And there are many examples in Acts of disciples doing exactly what Jesus had instructed them, namely baptising. For example:“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38). Then in verse 41 “So those who welcomed his message were baptised, and that day about three thousand persons were added.”St. Paul too “On hearing this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:5-6).Then we can look at other documents (apart from scripture itself)to see the practice in the first centuryThe Didache was written around A.D. 70, perhaps earlier and is a witness to the practices od the Church during the apostolic age. In chapter 7, it says, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." And from the Shepherd of Hermes (written about 80AD:"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’"So how can you say that sacraments are something invented, and inmvented in the middle of the first millenium?winsome
(winsome;50949)
Richard,I'm not going to unravel all the points you make, but you are simply wrong about rituals and sacraments. Let me take one simple example - the foundational sacrament of Baptism, considered foundational by not just Catholics and Orthodox, but many Protestant denominations as well.Lets look at scripture first:In John's gospel we read “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptised.” (Jn 3:22) and “They came to John and said to him, Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptising, and all are going to him.” (Jn 3:26). So Jesus and his disciples baptised. Jesus himself says “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19) and “The one who believes and is baptised will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk16:16)Go, therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you (Mt 28:19,20)SO Jesus instructs his followers to baptise disciples. And there are many examples in Acts of disciples doing exactly what Jesus had instructed them, namely baptising. For example:“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38). Then in verse 41 “So those who welcomed his message were baptised, and that day about three thousand persons were added.”St. Paul too “On hearing this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:5-6).Then we can look at other documents (apart from scripture itself)to see the practice in the first centuryThe Didache was written around A.D. 70, perhaps earlier and is a witness to the practices od the Church during the apostolic age. In chapter 7, it says, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." And from the Shepherd of Hermes (written about 80AD:"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’"So how can you say that sacraments are something invented, and inmvented in the middle of the first millenium?winsome
Sacraments is nowhere in the bible as Christ never invented that doctrine. It was made by man.
Richard,I'm not going to unravel all the points you make, but you are simply wrong about rituals and sacraments. Let me take one simple example - the foundational sacrament of Baptism, considered foundational by not just Catholics and Orthodox, but many Protestant denominations as well.Lets look at scripture first:In John's gospel we read “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptised.” (Jn 3:22) and “They came to John and said to him, Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptising, and all are going to him.” (Jn 3:26). So Jesus and his disciples baptised. Jesus himself says “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19) and “The one who believes and is baptised will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk16:16)Go, therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you (Mt 28:19,20)SO Jesus instructs his followers to baptise disciples. And there are many examples in Acts of disciples doing exactly what Jesus had instructed them, namely baptising. For example:“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38). Then in verse 41 “So those who welcomed his message were baptised, and that day about three thousand persons were added.”St. Paul too “On hearing this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:5-6).Then we can look at other documents (apart from scripture itself)to see the practice in the first centuryThe Didache was written around A.D. 70, perhaps earlier and is a witness to the practices od the Church during the apostolic age. In chapter 7, it says, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." And from the Shepherd of Hermes (written about 80AD:"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’"So how can you say that sacraments are something invented, and inmvented in the middle of the first millenium?winsome
Sacraments is nowhere in the bible as Christ never invented that doctrine. It was made by man.
(thesuperjag;50950)
Sacraments is nowhere in the bible as Christ never invented that doctrine. It was made by man.
Do you mean the word sacrament? Trinity is not in the Bible but most Christians accept a Trinitarian God.
Sacraments is nowhere in the bible as Christ never invented that doctrine. It was made by man.
Do you mean the word sacrament? Trinity is not in the Bible but most Christians accept a Trinitarian God.
Richard,You regard rituals as empty and useless. But this is not the case. There is a power in them. Let me explain. If I am hungry and have a £50 note I could eat the piece of paper and it would do nothing for me. I would still be hungry. But I could go into a restaurant and have a big four course meal with a bottle of fine wine. Then I would not feel hungry. You see the £50 note has power to feed me, not because of anything intrinsic in the bit of paper itself, but because of the promise attached to it. It actually says at the top “Bank of England I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of fifty pounds” The fifty pound note does what it does because of the promise attached to it. What is the difference between a real £50 note and a forged one? The difference is that a forged one has no promise attached.It is like this with rituals and symbols. Some of them have promises attached; promises made by God, either explicitly or implicitly.When God created the world he involved man in His work – by asking Adam to name the animals (Gen 2:19-20). God didn’t have to do that. He was capable of naming them himself. Then God gave man the job of completing creation by taking dominion over the earth and telling him to fill it and subdue it (Gen 1:28). And so it has continued – God involves man in his mighty works. He doesn’t need to but for some reason he wants to. He gives him a part to play, even though it is God doing 99.9999999999999999……..% of the work.Sometimes man’s part seems trivial and pointless such as Moses having to keep his arms raised in the battle with the Amalekites in Ex 17. God could give victory to Joshua without that, but he seemed to want Moses to be involved as well.Take the Exodus itself, a wonderful pre-figuring of our salvation story. At the beginning God saves the Israelites from the slavery of Egypt through the waters of the red sea. God told Moses to lift up his staff and when he did so God parted the sea. Why? God could perfectly well part the sea without Moses doing anything. Similarly God could pass over the Israelites first born without the blood on the doorposts. He knew who they were. But God gives us a part to play in the salvation process. And so it has been through the history of salvation. God gave many rituals to Israelites. When the carried out the rituals God acted. God acted not because man made him do so, but because God had promised he would and he tied the promise to the ritual. It was not their work but Gods. They did it in obedience to God, who acted in response to his promise and to the obedience of his people.Take the sin offerings of goats and sheep that were sacrificed, or the sin offering of the goat sent into the wilderness. Again God could have forgiven people without this. But he wanted some gesture on their part. It did not earn them forgiveness.It’s the same today. God has not changed. He wants to get involved with our messy physical world, and he wants us to play our part, tiny though it is, in the salvation process. He has given us rituals, actions to do, and has tied promises to them. His is the power but he wants us to do our little bit. We do not earn his saving grace, and it does not diminish the efficacy of his work on the cross , but we do it because he wants us to. God can, and does, act without these acts of ours, but nevertheless he has tied promises to them and he does fulfil his promises.Let me take four examples of rituals, God’s promises and how he acts:1. Remember the story of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:6-9Then the Lord sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned by speaking against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord to take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.” So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.The bronze serpent itself had no power to heal. But God attached a promise to the act (ritual) of looking at the bronze serpent. And when they acted as instructed God honoured his promise.2. Then take James 5:14-15)Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.Again there was a ritual. Did the anointing with oil heal them? No, the oil had no power to heal in itself. But there were promises attached to the ritual (and to the accompanying prayers of course). When the ritual was carried out we are told that God would deliver on his promise.3. See similarly Mk 16:16-18“Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”4. Now look at the ritual of laying on of hands by the apostles in Acts 8:14-19Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”Did the apostles have power over the Holy Spirit to command him to come at their bidding? Did the act of laying on of hands have any power in itself? No, it was God acting on the promise attached to the act that brought down the Holy Spirit.winsome
(winsome;50953)
Richard,You regard rituals as empty and useless. But this is not the case. There is a power in them. Let me explain. If I am hungry and have a £50 note I could eat the piece of paper and it would do nothing for me. I would still be hungry. But I could go into a restaurant and have a big four course meal with a bottle of fine wine. Then I would not feel hungry. You see the £50 note has power to feed me, not because of anything intrinsic in the bit of paper itself, but because of the promise attached to it. It actually says at the top “Bank of England I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of fifty pounds” The fifty pound note does what it does because of the promise attached to it. What is the difference between a real £50 note and a forged one? The difference is that a forged one has no promise attached.It is like this with rituals and symbols. Some of them have promises attached; promises made by God, either explicitly or implicitly.When God created the world he involved man in His work – by asking Adam to name the animals (Gen 2:19-20). God didn’t have to do that. He was capable of naming them himself. Then God gave man the job of completing creation by taking dominion over the earth and telling him to fill it and subdue it (Gen 1:28). And so it has continued – God involves man in his mighty works. He doesn’t need to but for some reason he wants to. He gives him a part to play, even though it is God doing 99.9999999999999999……..% of the work.Sometimes man’s part seems trivial and pointless such as Moses having to keep his arms raised in the battle with the Amalekites in Ex 17. God could give victory to Joshua without that, but he seemed to want Moses to be involved as well.Take the Exodus itself, a wonderful pre-figuring of our salvation story. At the beginning God saves the Israelites from the slavery of Egypt through the waters of the red sea. God told Moses to lift up his staff and when he did so God parted the sea. Why? God could perfectly well part the sea without Moses doing anything. Similarly God could pass over the Israelites first born without the blood on the doorposts. He knew who they were. But God gives us a part to play in the salvation process. And so it has been through the history of salvation. God gave many rituals to Israelites. When the carried out the rituals God acted. God acted not because man made him do so, but because God had promised he would and he tied the promise to the ritual. It was not their work but Gods. They did it in obedience to God, who acted in response to his promise and to the obedience of his people.Take the sin offerings of goats and sheep that were sacrificed, or the sin offering of the goat sent into the wilderness. Again God could have forgiven people without this. But he wanted some gesture on their part. It did not earn them forgiveness.It’s the same today. God has not changed. He wants to get involved with our messy physical world, and he wants us to play our part, tiny though it is, in the salvation process. He has given us rituals, actions to do, and has tied promises to them. His is the power but he wants us to do our little bit. We do not earn his saving grace, and it does not diminish the efficacy of his work on the cross , but we do it because he wants us to. God can, and does, act without these acts of ours, but nevertheless he has tied promises to them and he does fulfil his promises.Let me take four examples of rituals, God’s promises and how he acts:1. Remember the story of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:6-9Then the Lord sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned by speaking against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord to take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.” So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.The bronze serpent itself had no power to heal. But God attached a promise to the act (ritual) of looking at the bronze serpent. And when they acted as instructed God honoured his promise.2. Then take James 5:14-15)Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.Again there was a ritual. Did the anointing with oil heal them? No, the oil had no power to heal in itself. But there were promises attached to the ritual (and to the accompanying prayers of course). When the ritual was carried out we are told that God would deliver on his promise.3. See similarly Mk 16:16-18“Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”4. Now look at the ritual of laying on of hands by the apostles in Acts 8:14-19Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”Did the apostles have power over the Holy Spirit to command him to come at their bidding? Did the act of laying on of hands have any power in itself? No, it was God acting on the promise attached to the act that brought down the Holy Spirit.winsome
You said: "It is like this with rituals and symbols. Some of them have promises attached; promises made by God, either explicitly or implicitly."The jews had the Law of Moses and God said if you do them you will live. That was also a promise made by God. The probvlem is that no one could do them. Today we have another and far better promise. One that does not depend on man being able to do them. Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved. But that is too simple for the religious who want their works to count for something so they can boast about them.Richard
Richard,You regard rituals as empty and useless. But this is not the case. There is a power in them. Let me explain. If I am hungry and have a £50 note I could eat the piece of paper and it would do nothing for me. I would still be hungry. But I could go into a restaurant and have a big four course meal with a bottle of fine wine. Then I would not feel hungry. You see the £50 note has power to feed me, not because of anything intrinsic in the bit of paper itself, but because of the promise attached to it. It actually says at the top “Bank of England I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of fifty pounds” The fifty pound note does what it does because of the promise attached to it. What is the difference between a real £50 note and a forged one? The difference is that a forged one has no promise attached.It is like this with rituals and symbols. Some of them have promises attached; promises made by God, either explicitly or implicitly.When God created the world he involved man in His work – by asking Adam to name the animals (Gen 2:19-20). God didn’t have to do that. He was capable of naming them himself. Then God gave man the job of completing creation by taking dominion over the earth and telling him to fill it and subdue it (Gen 1:28). And so it has continued – God involves man in his mighty works. He doesn’t need to but for some reason he wants to. He gives him a part to play, even though it is God doing 99.9999999999999999……..% of the work.Sometimes man’s part seems trivial and pointless such as Moses having to keep his arms raised in the battle with the Amalekites in Ex 17. God could give victory to Joshua without that, but he seemed to want Moses to be involved as well.Take the Exodus itself, a wonderful pre-figuring of our salvation story. At the beginning God saves the Israelites from the slavery of Egypt through the waters of the red sea. God told Moses to lift up his staff and when he did so God parted the sea. Why? God could perfectly well part the sea without Moses doing anything. Similarly God could pass over the Israelites first born without the blood on the doorposts. He knew who they were. But God gives us a part to play in the salvation process. And so it has been through the history of salvation. God gave many rituals to Israelites. When the carried out the rituals God acted. God acted not because man made him do so, but because God had promised he would and he tied the promise to the ritual. It was not their work but Gods. They did it in obedience to God, who acted in response to his promise and to the obedience of his people.Take the sin offerings of goats and sheep that were sacrificed, or the sin offering of the goat sent into the wilderness. Again God could have forgiven people without this. But he wanted some gesture on their part. It did not earn them forgiveness.It’s the same today. God has not changed. He wants to get involved with our messy physical world, and he wants us to play our part, tiny though it is, in the salvation process. He has given us rituals, actions to do, and has tied promises to them. His is the power but he wants us to do our little bit. We do not earn his saving grace, and it does not diminish the efficacy of his work on the cross , but we do it because he wants us to. God can, and does, act without these acts of ours, but nevertheless he has tied promises to them and he does fulfil his promises.Let me take four examples of rituals, God’s promises and how he acts:1. Remember the story of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:6-9Then the Lord sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned by speaking against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord to take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.” So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.The bronze serpent itself had no power to heal. But God attached a promise to the act (ritual) of looking at the bronze serpent. And when they acted as instructed God honoured his promise.2. Then take James 5:14-15)Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.Again there was a ritual. Did the anointing with oil heal them? No, the oil had no power to heal in itself. But there were promises attached to the ritual (and to the accompanying prayers of course). When the ritual was carried out we are told that God would deliver on his promise.3. See similarly Mk 16:16-18“Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”4. Now look at the ritual of laying on of hands by the apostles in Acts 8:14-19Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”Did the apostles have power over the Holy Spirit to command him to come at their bidding? Did the act of laying on of hands have any power in itself? No, it was God acting on the promise attached to the act that brought down the Holy Spirit.winsome
You said: "It is like this with rituals and symbols. Some of them have promises attached; promises made by God, either explicitly or implicitly."The jews had the Law of Moses and God said if you do them you will live. That was also a promise made by God. The probvlem is that no one could do them. Today we have another and far better promise. One that does not depend on man being able to do them. Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved. But that is too simple for the religious who want their works to count for something so they can boast about them.Richard
(RichardBurger;50956)
You said: "It is like this with rituals and symbols. Some of them have promises attached; promises made by God, either explicitly or implicitly."The jews had the Law of Moses and God said if you do them you will live. That was also a promise made by God. The probvlem is that no one could do them. Today we have another and far better promise. One that does not depend on man being able to do them. Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved. But that is too simple for the religious who want their works to count for something so they can boast about them.Richard
You haven't addressed any of the points I made so I will repeat them.You regard rituals as empty and useless. But this is not the case. There is a power in them. Let me explain. If I am hungry and have a £50 note I could eat the piece of paper and it would do nothing for me. I would still be hungry. But I could go into a restaurant and have a big four course meal with a bottle of fine wine. Then I would not feel hungry. You see the £50 note has power to feed me, not because of anything intrinsic in the bit of paper itself, but because of the promise attached to it. It actually says at the top “Bank of England I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of fifty pounds” The fifty pound note does what it does because of the promise attached to it. What is the difference between a real £50 note and a forged one? The difference is that a forged one has no promise attached.It is like this with rituals and symbols. Some of them have promises attached; promises made by God, either explicitly or implicitly.When God created the world he involved man in His work – by asking Adam to name the animals (Gen 2:19-20). God didn’t have to do that. He was capable of naming them himself. Then God gave man the job of completing creation by taking dominion over the earth and telling him to fill it and subdue it (Gen 1:28). And so it has continued – God involves man in his mighty works. He doesn’t need to but for some reason he wants to. He gives him a part to play, even though it is God doing 99.9999999999999999……..% of the work.Sometimes man’s part seems trivial and pointless such as Moses having to keep his arms raised in the battle with the Amalekites in Ex 17. God could give victory to Joshua without that, but he seemed to want Moses to be involved as well.Take the Exodus itself, a wonderful pre-figuring of our salvation story. At the beginning God saves the Israelites from the slavery of Egypt through the waters of the red sea. God told Moses to lift up his staff and when he did so God parted the sea. Why? God could perfectly well part the sea without Moses doing anything. Similarly God could pass over the Israelites first born without the blood on the doorposts. He knew who they were. But God gives us a part to play in the salvation process. And so it has been through the history of salvation. God gave many rituals to Israelites. When the carried out the rituals God acted. God acted not because man made him do so, but because God had promised he would and he tied the promise to the ritual. It was not their work but Gods. They did it in obedience to God, who acted in response to his promise and to the obedience of his people.Take the sin offerings of goats and sheep that were sacrificed, or the sin offering of the goat sent into the wilderness. Again God could have forgiven people without this. But he wanted some gesture on their part. It did not earn them forgiveness.It’s the same today. God has not changed. He wants to get involved with our messy physical world, and he wants us to play our part, tiny though it is, in the salvation process. He has given us rituals, actions to do, and has tied promises to them. His is the power but he wants us to do our little bit. We do not earn his saving grace, and it does not diminish the efficacy of his work on the cross , but we do it because he wants us to. God can, and does, act without these acts of ours, but nevertheless he has tied promises to them and he does fulfil his promises.Let me take four examples of rituals, God’s promises and how he acts:1. Remember the story of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:6-9Then the Lord sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned by speaking against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord to take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.” So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.The bronze serpent itself had no power to heal. But God attached a promise to the act (ritual) of looking at the bronze serpent. And when they acted as instructed God honoured his promise.2. Then take James 5:14-15)Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.Again there was a ritual. Did the anointing with oil heal them? No, the oil had no power to heal in itself. But there were promises attached to the ritual (and to the accompanying prayers of course). When the ritual was carried out we are told that God would deliver on his promise.3. See similarly Mk 16:16-18“Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”4. Now look at the ritual of laying on of hands by the apostles in Acts 8:14-19Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”Did the apostles have power over the Holy Spirit to command him to come at their bidding? Did the act of laying on of hands have any power in itself? No, it was God acting on the promise attached to the act that brought down the Holy Spirit.winsome
You said: "It is like this with rituals and symbols. Some of them have promises attached; promises made by God, either explicitly or implicitly."The jews had the Law of Moses and God said if you do them you will live. That was also a promise made by God. The probvlem is that no one could do them. Today we have another and far better promise. One that does not depend on man being able to do them. Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved. But that is too simple for the religious who want their works to count for something so they can boast about them.Richard
You haven't addressed any of the points I made so I will repeat them.You regard rituals as empty and useless. But this is not the case. There is a power in them. Let me explain. If I am hungry and have a £50 note I could eat the piece of paper and it would do nothing for me. I would still be hungry. But I could go into a restaurant and have a big four course meal with a bottle of fine wine. Then I would not feel hungry. You see the £50 note has power to feed me, not because of anything intrinsic in the bit of paper itself, but because of the promise attached to it. It actually says at the top “Bank of England I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of fifty pounds” The fifty pound note does what it does because of the promise attached to it. What is the difference between a real £50 note and a forged one? The difference is that a forged one has no promise attached.It is like this with rituals and symbols. Some of them have promises attached; promises made by God, either explicitly or implicitly.When God created the world he involved man in His work – by asking Adam to name the animals (Gen 2:19-20). God didn’t have to do that. He was capable of naming them himself. Then God gave man the job of completing creation by taking dominion over the earth and telling him to fill it and subdue it (Gen 1:28). And so it has continued – God involves man in his mighty works. He doesn’t need to but for some reason he wants to. He gives him a part to play, even though it is God doing 99.9999999999999999……..% of the work.Sometimes man’s part seems trivial and pointless such as Moses having to keep his arms raised in the battle with the Amalekites in Ex 17. God could give victory to Joshua without that, but he seemed to want Moses to be involved as well.Take the Exodus itself, a wonderful pre-figuring of our salvation story. At the beginning God saves the Israelites from the slavery of Egypt through the waters of the red sea. God told Moses to lift up his staff and when he did so God parted the sea. Why? God could perfectly well part the sea without Moses doing anything. Similarly God could pass over the Israelites first born without the blood on the doorposts. He knew who they were. But God gives us a part to play in the salvation process. And so it has been through the history of salvation. God gave many rituals to Israelites. When the carried out the rituals God acted. God acted not because man made him do so, but because God had promised he would and he tied the promise to the ritual. It was not their work but Gods. They did it in obedience to God, who acted in response to his promise and to the obedience of his people.Take the sin offerings of goats and sheep that were sacrificed, or the sin offering of the goat sent into the wilderness. Again God could have forgiven people without this. But he wanted some gesture on their part. It did not earn them forgiveness.It’s the same today. God has not changed. He wants to get involved with our messy physical world, and he wants us to play our part, tiny though it is, in the salvation process. He has given us rituals, actions to do, and has tied promises to them. His is the power but he wants us to do our little bit. We do not earn his saving grace, and it does not diminish the efficacy of his work on the cross , but we do it because he wants us to. God can, and does, act without these acts of ours, but nevertheless he has tied promises to them and he does fulfil his promises.Let me take four examples of rituals, God’s promises and how he acts:1. Remember the story of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:6-9Then the Lord sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned by speaking against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord to take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.” So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.The bronze serpent itself had no power to heal. But God attached a promise to the act (ritual) of looking at the bronze serpent. And when they acted as instructed God honoured his promise.2. Then take James 5:14-15)Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.Again there was a ritual. Did the anointing with oil heal them? No, the oil had no power to heal in itself. But there were promises attached to the ritual (and to the accompanying prayers of course). When the ritual was carried out we are told that God would deliver on his promise.3. See similarly Mk 16:16-18“Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”4. Now look at the ritual of laying on of hands by the apostles in Acts 8:14-19Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”Did the apostles have power over the Holy Spirit to command him to come at their bidding? Did the act of laying on of hands have any power in itself? No, it was God acting on the promise attached to the act that brought down the Holy Spirit.winsome
(winsome;50949)
Richard,I'm not going to unravel all the points you make, but you are simply wrong about rituals and sacraments. Let me take one simple example - the foundational sacrament of Baptism, considered foundational by not just Catholics and Orthodox, but many Protestant denominations as well.Lets look at scripture first:In John's gospel we read “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptised.” (Jn 3:22) and “They came to John and said to him, Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptising, and all are going to him.” (Jn 3:26). So Jesus and his disciples baptised. Jesus himself says “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19) and “The one who believes and is baptised will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk16:16)Go, therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you (Mt 28:19,20)SO Jesus instructs his followers to baptise disciples. And there are many examples in Acts of disciples doing exactly what Jesus had instructed them, namely baptising. For example:“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38). Then in verse 41 “So those who welcomed his message were baptised, and that day about three thousand persons were added.”St. Paul too “On hearing this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:5-6).Then we can look at other documents (apart from scripture itself)to see the practice in the first centuryThe Didache was written around A.D. 70, perhaps earlier and is a witness to the practices od the Church during the apostolic age. In chapter 7, it says, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." And from the Shepherd of Hermes (written about 80AD:"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’"So how can you say that sacraments are something invented, and inmvented in the middle of the first millenium?winsome
You said: "I'm not going to unravel all the points you make, but you are simply wrong about rituals and sacraments."Sorry but I disagree with you and I don't think I am wrong. Since you accused me of being wrong then I can accuse you of the same thing.You said: "“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38).Did you know that this verse was a direct responce to the Jew's question of "what can we do?" They had crucified the Messiah and asked Peter what they could do about it. The sins they collectively commited was to kill the Messiah. --- It is stupid to take this verse, pull it out of its context, and use it as a formula to be saved by water baptism.Another thing that the religious do is to take the Great Commission and apply it to the grace church. It was never meant to be. If you don't want to believe this then tell me why James and the Edlers agreed with Paul, that Paul would go to the Gentiles, and James and the Elders would go to the Jews. Gal. 2:7-10We see in Gal. that they, the Jews, were no longer going to keep the Great Commission. So why do the religious teach that it applys to the grace church today? -- This error was spawned by the RCC who used the 12 as their right to be the grace church instead of Paul. Why would they do that? Because the simple gospel of God's grace would leave them powerless to control the religious.Richard
Richard,I'm not going to unravel all the points you make, but you are simply wrong about rituals and sacraments. Let me take one simple example - the foundational sacrament of Baptism, considered foundational by not just Catholics and Orthodox, but many Protestant denominations as well.Lets look at scripture first:In John's gospel we read “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptised.” (Jn 3:22) and “They came to John and said to him, Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptising, and all are going to him.” (Jn 3:26). So Jesus and his disciples baptised. Jesus himself says “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19) and “The one who believes and is baptised will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk16:16)Go, therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you (Mt 28:19,20)SO Jesus instructs his followers to baptise disciples. And there are many examples in Acts of disciples doing exactly what Jesus had instructed them, namely baptising. For example:“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38). Then in verse 41 “So those who welcomed his message were baptised, and that day about three thousand persons were added.”St. Paul too “On hearing this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:5-6).Then we can look at other documents (apart from scripture itself)to see the practice in the first centuryThe Didache was written around A.D. 70, perhaps earlier and is a witness to the practices od the Church during the apostolic age. In chapter 7, it says, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." And from the Shepherd of Hermes (written about 80AD:"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’"So how can you say that sacraments are something invented, and inmvented in the middle of the first millenium?winsome
You said: "I'm not going to unravel all the points you make, but you are simply wrong about rituals and sacraments."Sorry but I disagree with you and I don't think I am wrong. Since you accused me of being wrong then I can accuse you of the same thing.You said: "“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38).Did you know that this verse was a direct responce to the Jew's question of "what can we do?" They had crucified the Messiah and asked Peter what they could do about it. The sins they collectively commited was to kill the Messiah. --- It is stupid to take this verse, pull it out of its context, and use it as a formula to be saved by water baptism.Another thing that the religious do is to take the Great Commission and apply it to the grace church. It was never meant to be. If you don't want to believe this then tell me why James and the Edlers agreed with Paul, that Paul would go to the Gentiles, and James and the Elders would go to the Jews. Gal. 2:7-10We see in Gal. that they, the Jews, were no longer going to keep the Great Commission. So why do the religious teach that it applys to the grace church today? -- This error was spawned by the RCC who used the 12 as their right to be the grace church instead of Paul. Why would they do that? Because the simple gospel of God's grace would leave them powerless to control the religious.Richard
The Anglican definition of what a sacrament is, is "an outward physical sign of an inward spiritual motion". This is true of much of the rituals that Jesus had bestowed onto his disciples.Baptism, clearly the water, and the new life in the Spirit.Communion, the bread and the wine, and the remembrance of Christ's sacrifice.Marriage, the rings, and the binding of God for 2 people to come together as one.I don't see anything out of order with this teaching.
(RichardBurger;50961)
You said: "I'm not going to unravel all the points you make, but you are simply wrong about rituals and sacraments."Sorry but I disagree with you and I don't think I am wrong. Since you accused me of being wrong then I can accuse you of the same thing.You said: "“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38).Did you know that this verse was a direct responce to the Jew's question of "what can we do?" They had crucified the Messiah and asked Peter what they could do about it. The sins they collectively commited was to kill the Messiah. --- It is stupid to take this verse, pull it out of its context, and use it as a formula to be saved by water baptism.Another thing that the religious do is to take the Great Commission and apply it to the grace church. It was never meant to be. If you don't want to believe this then tell me why James and the Edlers agreed with Paul, that Paul would go to the Gentiles, and James and the Elders would go to the Jews. Gal. 2:7-10We see in Gal. that they, the Jews, were no longer going to keep the Great Commission. So why do the religious teach that it applys to the grace church today? -- This error was spawned by the RCC who used the 12 as their right to be the grace church instead of Paul. Why would they do that? Because the simple gospel of God's grace would leave them powerless to control the religious.Richard
Richard,I showed that Baptism, as an example of a sacrament was instituted and commanded by Jesus but you have made no attempt to answer my post. Just saying you disagree is not an answer.You have made no attempt to answer my post about rituals. Just saying you disagree is not an answer.Why do you not attempt to answer my points? Because they show up the emptiness of your position?winsome
You said: "I'm not going to unravel all the points you make, but you are simply wrong about rituals and sacraments."Sorry but I disagree with you and I don't think I am wrong. Since you accused me of being wrong then I can accuse you of the same thing.You said: "“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38).Did you know that this verse was a direct responce to the Jew's question of "what can we do?" They had crucified the Messiah and asked Peter what they could do about it. The sins they collectively commited was to kill the Messiah. --- It is stupid to take this verse, pull it out of its context, and use it as a formula to be saved by water baptism.Another thing that the religious do is to take the Great Commission and apply it to the grace church. It was never meant to be. If you don't want to believe this then tell me why James and the Edlers agreed with Paul, that Paul would go to the Gentiles, and James and the Elders would go to the Jews. Gal. 2:7-10We see in Gal. that they, the Jews, were no longer going to keep the Great Commission. So why do the religious teach that it applys to the grace church today? -- This error was spawned by the RCC who used the 12 as their right to be the grace church instead of Paul. Why would they do that? Because the simple gospel of God's grace would leave them powerless to control the religious.Richard
Richard,I showed that Baptism, as an example of a sacrament was instituted and commanded by Jesus but you have made no attempt to answer my post. Just saying you disagree is not an answer.You have made no attempt to answer my post about rituals. Just saying you disagree is not an answer.Why do you not attempt to answer my points? Because they show up the emptiness of your position?winsome
It was said: "The Didache was written around A.D. 70, perhaps earlier and is a witness to the practices od the Church during the apostolic age. In chapter 7, it says, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."***According to the Bible, thr Holy Spirit is the living water.John 4:11-1411 The woman said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water?12 Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?" 13 Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again,14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life." NKJVJohn 7:37-3937 On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. NKJVTo liken the Holy Spirit to physical water on this earth is rather stuoid in my opinion.Richard
(RichardBurger;50964)
According to the Bible, thr Holy Spirit is the living water.
Richard this perplexes me then, why when Jesus speaks to Nicodemus in John 3 why does he say one must be born again of the water and the Spirit?
According to the Bible, thr Holy Spirit is the living water.
Richard this perplexes me then, why when Jesus speaks to Nicodemus in John 3 why does he say one must be born again of the water and the Spirit?
(RichardBurger;50964)
It was said: "The Didache was written around A.D. 70, perhaps earlier and is a witness to the practices od the Church during the apostolic age. In chapter 7, it says, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."***According to the Bible, thr Holy Spirit is the living water.John 4:11-1411 The woman said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water?12 Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?" 13 Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again,14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life." NKJVJohn 7:37-3937 On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. NKJVTo liken the Holy Spirit to physical water on this earth is rather stuoid in my opinion.Richard
The context of the Didache using the term living water clearly shows it is talking about physical water. So the Didache is not likening the Holy Spirit to physical water. You are making that connection.And you are still avoiding answering my points.
It was said: "The Didache was written around A.D. 70, perhaps earlier and is a witness to the practices od the Church during the apostolic age. In chapter 7, it says, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."***According to the Bible, thr Holy Spirit is the living water.John 4:11-1411 The woman said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water?12 Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?" 13 Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again,14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life." NKJVJohn 7:37-3937 On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. NKJVTo liken the Holy Spirit to physical water on this earth is rather stuoid in my opinion.Richard
The context of the Didache using the term living water clearly shows it is talking about physical water. So the Didache is not likening the Holy Spirit to physical water. You are making that connection.And you are still avoiding answering my points.
(winsome;50951)
(thesuperjag;50950)
Sacraments is nowhere in the bible as Christ never invented that doctrine. It was made by man.
Do you mean the word sacrament?Trinity is not in the Bible but most Christians accept a Trinitarian God.Yea, well, you won't find me using that word in this forum as the Word Godhead is more powerful than that word.
(thesuperjag;50950)
Sacraments is nowhere in the bible as Christ never invented that doctrine. It was made by man.
Do you mean the word sacrament?Trinity is not in the Bible but most Christians accept a Trinitarian God.Yea, well, you won't find me using that word in this forum as the Word Godhead is more powerful than that word.
(thesuperjag;50967)
Yea, well, you won't find me using that word in this forum as the Word Godhead is more powerful than that word.
"In Christian belief and practice, a sacrament is a rite that mediates divine grace, constituting a sacred mystery. The root meaning of the Latin word sacramentum is to "make sacred".So you don't consider these rites to be made sacred? I honestly don't get why people seem to wish to deny Church history and tradition.
Yea, well, you won't find me using that word in this forum as the Word Godhead is more powerful than that word.
"In Christian belief and practice, a sacrament is a rite that mediates divine grace, constituting a sacred mystery. The root meaning of the Latin word sacramentum is to "make sacred".So you don't consider these rites to be made sacred? I honestly don't get why people seem to wish to deny Church history and tradition.
(Gareth)
(thesuperjag;50967)
Yea, well, you won't find me using that word in this forum as the Word Godhead is more powerful than that word.
"In Christian belief and practice, a sacrament is a rite that mediates divine grace, constituting a sacred mystery. The root meaning of the Latin word sacramentum is to "make sacred".So you don't consider these rites to be made sacred?I honestly don't get why people seem to wish to deny Church history and tradition.No I do not...because it is downright aweful. Why do Church history and tradition goes against the Word of God, even Christ.
(thesuperjag;50967)
Yea, well, you won't find me using that word in this forum as the Word Godhead is more powerful than that word.
"In Christian belief and practice, a sacrament is a rite that mediates divine grace, constituting a sacred mystery. The root meaning of the Latin word sacramentum is to "make sacred".So you don't consider these rites to be made sacred?I honestly don't get why people seem to wish to deny Church history and tradition.No I do not...because it is downright aweful. Why do Church history and tradition goes against the Word of God, even Christ.
(thesuperjag;50969)
No I do not...because it is downright aweful. Why do Church history and tradition goes against the Word of God, even Christ.
Can you show where Baptism goes against Christ, when it was He who commanded it be done?
No I do not...because it is downright aweful. Why do Church history and tradition goes against the Word of God, even Christ.
Can you show where Baptism goes against Christ, when it was He who commanded it be done?
(thesuperjag;50969)
No I do not...because it is downright aweful. Why do Church history and tradition goes against the Word of God, even Christ.
It doesn't. How does it go against Christ at all? In this case sacraments are clearly in the Bible.I don't know what is so difficult to understand by what Jesus said Himself about "water and the Spirit" in John 3. That fits perfectly into what a sacrament is. "An outward physical sign of an inward spiritual motion".Outward sign = WaterInward sign = The Spirit
No I do not...because it is downright aweful. Why do Church history and tradition goes against the Word of God, even Christ.
It doesn't. How does it go against Christ at all? In this case sacraments are clearly in the Bible.I don't know what is so difficult to understand by what Jesus said Himself about "water and the Spirit" in John 3. That fits perfectly into what a sacrament is. "An outward physical sign of an inward spiritual motion".Outward sign = WaterInward sign = The Spirit
Similar threads
