The Catholic Church gets put down a lot, but it was all that could help

[OzSpen]

. Yeah sure, okay Mr. Teapot

And is this Spirit-filled language?

 

[OzSpen]

Do you have a big problem with gnosticism in Australia Oz, because in all my 62 years of life I've never encountered one gnostic. And if I do it wouldn't be a problem dealing with them or recognizing the false teaching because I know my Bible and have the Holy Spirit, so I don't need somebody like Irenaeus to teach me what I already know.

Stan,

So, in your 62 years you have never come across one Gnostic. Could it be associated with your myopia? See Michael Horton's, 'The New Gnosticis: Is It The Age of the Spirit or The Spirit of the Age?' It could be closer than you think.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

You can't admit you got it wrong when I provided you with a link to a Pentecostal-charismatic denomination that did not believe as you said.
Then you launch into a red herring fallacy and an ad hominem fallacy.
I took you off Ignore so that we might have a discussion, but with the fallacious reasoning and personal attacks on me, you are now back on Ignore.

Because it didn't say that they were against the belief that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Those words were not in their SoF at all. Don't blame me for reading something into a document that isn't there then get mad at me. That's probably best that you keep me on ignore because all you ever do is argue about semantics rather than actual issues.

 

[StanJ]

And is this Spirit-filled language?

As much as yours was. I just don't get self-righteous about it.

 

[StanJ]

Stan,
So, in your 62 years you have never come across one Gnostic. Could it be associated with your myopia? See Michael Horton's, 'The New Gnosticis: Is It The Age of the Spirit or The Spirit of the Age?' It could be closer than you think.
Oz

You see there's your problem, you would rather believe in somebody who's published a book than believe a person you are actually discussing with. That's pretty sad Oz.

 

[OzSpen]

I am not sure what you mean by your statement. If you are suggesting I may know more about baptism and what different Christian theologians have written about it over the last 2000 years, you are correct.

If you are suggesting I may know more about which RCC or Orthodox authors YOU have read to help you come to your conclusion about baptism I don't have a clue. That is why I asked: Which books on the Orthodox or RCC side of the isle have you read that you would recommend to me?

I didn't know about D Martyn Lloyd-Jones until you told me about him.

Tom,

I thought that you knew more about the last 2,000 years of teaching on baptism. As for RCC and Orthodox teaching on baptism, that has not been my specialist area of interest. However, I know enough about the views of these denominations that I would not be pursuing their views on baptism. I do not believe baptismal regeneration is consistent with biblical teaching, so I would not be promoting a platform that pursues that theology.

So, I don't have any RCC or Orthodox volumes on baptism that I'd be recommending to you, based on what I have read. Are you aware of Rite of Baptism for Children (an RCC approved publication) and Orthodox Baptism (online)?

I am surprised that you have not heard about the leading evangelical British expositor of the 20th century Dr D Martyn Lloyd-Jones. See his 14 volume exposition on the Book of Romans. I have this series in my personal library. He also has an excellent exposition on the Sermon on the Mount. He was a medical doctor before he became a leading biblical expositor - Reformed in his theology. Iain H Murray has written a splendid and extensive biography of D Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

That's probably best that you keep me on ignore because all you ever do is argue about semantics rather than actual issues.

Stan,

This is not only false, but it's a straw man fallacy.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

This is not only false, but it's a straw man fallacy.

Oz

Is your ignore button not working?

 

[ScaliaFan]

Scalia,

Last week I attended a funeral led by a Roman Catholic priest. The person who died was an evangelical Anglican whose Saviour was Jesus Christ. He had a long battle with cancer and the last 3 years of his life were in a RC nursing home.

At the beginning of the service, the RC priest sprinkled holy water over the closed coffin. At the end of the service, after family had viewed the body and the lid was closed, the priest sprinkled holy water again and then lit incense in a device and waved it near the coffin as it was wheeled to the hearse.

Please tell me how these RC practices can be justified. Where in Scripture are they found? Or, is it RC teaching that needs no confirmation from Scripture? Has it been invented by the RCC?

Oz

not all that God wants for us can be found in Scripture. You must agree that God cannot be cntained in a mere book? Those who profess to go by th Bible alone are NOTbeing honest and they would be foolish to try to do so anyway. The words Trinity and Bible are not in the Bible... (etc)

Then there is the the way the "church" was run in OT times, the synagogue. Did Jesus throw out everything from the OT (rituals, etc)?? No, he did not. He quoted the Old T.. and in one place He told someone to go present himself to the priest... even as He also said elsewhere to do as they say but not as they do (the priests, that is)

protestants are 500 years removed from the original church, so it is no surprise they do not u/stand the Original Church. But anyone who wants to u/stand it can take a RCIA class, which again, is Sept to Easter every year at every church

 

[OzSpen]

not all that God wants for us can be found in Scripture. You must agree that God cannot be cntained in a mere book? Those who profess to go by th Bible alone are NOTbeing honest and they would be foolish to try to do so anyway. The words Trinity and Bible are not in the Bible... (etc)

Then there is the the way the "church" was run in OT times, the synagogue. Did Jesus throw out everything from the OT (rituals, etc)?? No, he did not. He quoted the Old T.. and in one place He told someone to go present himself to the priest... even as He also said elsewhere to do as they say but not as they do (the priests, that is)

protestants are 500 years removed from the original church, so it is no surprise they do not u/stand the Original Church. But anyone who wants to u/stand it can take a RCIA class, which again, is Sept to Easter every year at every church

This is a red herring of a reply as you did not answer the questions I asked of the RCC but gave your spin on what you wanted to say about other topics that were important to you. But you still avoided answering my questions.

 

[StanJ]

not all that God wants for us can be found in Scripture. You must agree that God cannot be cntained in a mere book?

Of course it can, the fullness of God was contained in a mere man. John 20:31
What exactly is the difference, aside from the obvious one?

 

[ScaliaFan]

This is a red herring of a reply as you did not answer the questions I asked of the RCC but gave your spin on what you wanted to say about other topics that were important to you. But you still avoided answering my questions.

what Q?

 

[ScaliaFan]

Of course it can, the fullness of God was contained in a mere man. John 20:31
What exactly is the difference, aside from the obvious one?

I would rather be in a loved one's presence than just read a book written about the person over and over and over until i memorize it, lovely as that is...

 

[StanJ]

I would rather be in a loved one's presence than just read a book written about the person over and over and over until i memorize it, lovely as that is...

I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Jesus said no man has ever been in God's presence so do you think that when you die you're going to be in God's presence? Why exactly do you think Jesus is returning?

 

[OzSpen]

what Q?

I asked 4 questions of you in #128. Are you blind to seeing them in this reply? Or don't you read what I write in response to you?

 

[tom55]

Tom,

I thought that you knew more about the last 2,000 years of teaching on baptism. As for RCC and Orthodox teaching on baptism, that has not been my specialist area of interest. However, I know enough about the views of these denominations that I would not be pursuing their views on baptism. I do not believe baptismal regeneration is consistent with biblical teaching, so I would not be promoting a platform that pursues that theology.

So, I don't have any RCC or Orthodox volumes on baptism that I'd be recommending to you, based on what I have read. Are you aware of Rite of Baptism for Children (an RCC approved publication) and Orthodox Baptism (online)?

I am surprised that you have not heard about the leading evangelical British expositor of the 20th century Dr D Martyn Lloyd-Jones. See his 14 volume exposition on the Book of Romans. I have this series in my personal library. He also has an excellent exposition on the Sermon on the Mount. He was a medical doctor before he became a leading biblical expositor - Reformed in his theology. Iain H Murray has written a splendid and extensive biography of D Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Oz

I was hoping that you would suggest to me something to read pre-protestant reformation. I assumed that since you said you are "not convinced there is any other way to determine the correct view of, say, baptism than a historical, contextual, grammatical interpretation of Scripture" that you would have something more "historical" than Lloyd-Jones. Not necessarily just on baptism but on any Christian subject. (I brought up baptism only as an example)

I assumed you would have in your library some RCC or Orthodox writings since they are a bit more "historical" than Lloyd-Jones and you are a well read person. Don't be surprised that I haven't heard of him. I have only recently started devouring information/books about my Christian faith. Within the last couple of months I have started reading the Early Church Fathers. In my opinion they seem to disagree with your belief in "baptismal regeneration" and you can't get more "historical" than the Early Church Fathers. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Thank you for your time!

 

[tom55]

Scalia,

Last week I attended a funeral led by a Roman Catholic priest. The person who died was an evangelical Anglican whose Saviour was Jesus Christ. He had a long battle with cancer and the last 3 years of his life were in a RC nursing home.

At the beginning of the service, the RC priest sprinkled holy water over the closed coffin. At the end of the service, after family had viewed the body and the lid was closed, the priest sprinkled holy water again and then lit incense in a device and waved it near the coffin as it was wheeled to the hearse.

Please tell me how these RC practices can be justified. Where in Scripture are they found? Or, is it RC teaching that needs no confirmation from Scripture? Has it been invented by the RCC?

Oz

Not sure if you are talking about the use of holy water and incense not being found in Scripture or all of the RCC practices not being in Scripture since holy water and incense are in Scripture. As far as RCC practices not being found in Scripture all the churches I have been too have practices that are not found in Scripture.

I guess it's important to separate practices (sprinkling of holy water and use of incense) from doctrine (baptism, Eucharist etc etc) that possibly effects your salvation.

I wonder why a RC priest was sprinkling water over the coffin of an evangelical Anglican? Must be more to the story.

 

[OzSpen]

I was hoping that you would suggest to me something to read pre-protestant reformation. I assumed that since you said you are "not convinced there is any other way to determine the correct view of, say, baptism than a historical, contextual, grammatical interpretation of Scripture" that you would have something more "historical" than Lloyd-Jones. Not necessarily just on baptism but on any Christian subject. (I brought up baptism only as an example)

I assumed you would have in your library some RCC or Orthodox writings since they are a bit more "historical" than Lloyd-Jones and you are a well read person. Don't be surprised that I haven't heard of him. I have only recently started devouring information/books about my Christian faith. Within the last couple of months I have started reading the Early Church Fathers. In my opinion they seem to disagree with your belief in "baptismal regeneration" and you can't get more "historical" than the Early Church Fathers. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Thank you for your time!

Tom,

You have misunderstood what I wrote. Perhaps I did not make that as clear as I should have. When I spoke of 'historical, contextual, grammatical interpretation of Scripture', I meant that when I am interpreting any Scripture I need to take into consideration the historical, contextual, grammatical (and I'll add cultural) issues that affect that Scripture or section of Scripture. I was not discussing how Lloyd-Jones affected my historical understanding of Scripture. I was giving information about my approach to hermeneutics of any passage of Scripture.

I do not believe in baptismal regeneration. I want to make that clear. I do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. There were some church fathers who accepted baptismal regeneration. There were others who didn't. My responsibility is to be an accurate interpreter of Scripture - with the help and feedback of my local church.

There is a considerable number of NT verses that contradict baptismal regeneration teaching: See Luke 23:43; John 3:16; Acts 16:30-31; etc. There are many other passages that support faith alone and not faith+baptism for salvation. These verses would be teaching error if baptism was needed for salvation.

Dr Google will help you find which church fathers supported baptismal regeneration and which did not.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I wonder why a RC priest was sprinkling water over the coffin of an evangelical Anglican? Must be more to the story.

I've since check with the family and was told that for the last 3 years of his life (he suffered cancer for 12 years) he was in high care in a Roman Catholic nursing home. The RC priest brought him communion once a week. What happened at the funeral was organised by his wife and his family didn't know that the holy water and incense practice was going to be performed.

Where in the NT are the sprinkling of holy water and burning of incense a Christian practice?

Oz

 

[Born_Again]

I've since check with the family and was told that for the last 3 years of his life (he suffered cancer for 12 years) he was in high care in a Roman Catholic nursing home. The RC priest brought him communion once a week. What happened at the funeral was organised by his wife and his family didn't know that the holy water and incense practice was going to be performed.

Where in the NT are the sprinkling of holy water and burning of incense a Christian practice?

Oz

Exactly! No where in the NT does it say to burn any aroma's pleasing to the Lord. Why does the RCC practice this? If they are being symbolic of burnt sacrifices then they are practicing OT covenant.

Clarification please...