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

[OzSpen]

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...

You'll be getting no clarification from me because I don't believe such practices are biblical. I simply gave an example of what happened at an RCC priest-led funeral a couple of weeks ago that I attended.

 

[tom55]

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

There are lot's of things that various Christian Churches practice that are not in the NT! Does that make their Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture wrong? If we were to hold to the "Christian practice" of the NT we would still be meeting in houses and I know I don't want several hundred people at my house every Sunday. :wacko:

 

[tom55]

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

Thank you for the clarification on Lloyd-Jones. I didn't misunderstand you. I think we were not being very clear to each other. I apologize.

I agree with you that baptism is not necessary for salvation if the person does not have the opportunity to be baptized before they die (Luke 23:43). However, believing is not just sitting in a Church or at home thinking about it. The word believe is a verb (action).

When we continue reading PAST John 3:16 (believe in Him) we see in verse 22 that baptism then takes place. Believe first, baptism second!

Same with Acts 16:31 (believe) and then verse 33 (baptism). Believe first, baptism second!

As you know there are a considerable number of NT verses that contradict what you believe and the two you mentioned (John and Acts) when one reads the whole story, instead of the partial story you cited, one can easily see that baptism is an important part of salvation practiced and sanctioned by Jesus Christ and his Apostles . Early Christian writings from men who walked and talked with the Apostles also contradict your belief and one can't get more "historical" than them.

It may be easy for you to disregard 1Peter 3:21 and John 3:5 but I refuse to throw out Scripture that doesn't confirm to my personal beliefs. The practice of baptism being symbolic has only been around for 500 years. What I believe about baptism has been taught for 2000 years.

You said, "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."

The only time the words "faith alone" are together in the bible is James 2:24.

Also, since there are passages that support "faith alone" do those passages negate salvation thru baptism passages? If so, wouldn't it be logical to say that the salvation thru baptism passages would negate the faith alone passages? Maybe both are required for Salvation.

I like "Dr. Google" but there's nothing like having a book in your hand to highlight and underline important sentences.....So about 2 months ago I bought a book on the writings of the Church Fathers.

 

[wesOK]

It is mos def different strokes for different folks! On the real though being a follower of Christ is extremely simple. We have to be compassionate, kind, and forgiving if we want to be truly happy in this life. Our goal in life is to be more Christlike and these three characteristics are vital in doing this. We must also do this to teach our children and youth how to obtain these attributes. it is our responsibility as well as the churches. We can help our churches through fundraisers and programs like cell Phones 4 Churches. This will give them the ability to get the resources needed to help in this education process. It is definitely not the responsibility of the public schools and we must recognize that fact. We must be examples of living what Jesus taught us. Love everyone you come across in life and treat others the way you want to be treated.

 

[OzSpen]

There are lot's of things that various Christian Churches practice that are not in the NT! Does that make their Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture wrong? If we were to hold to the "Christian practice" of the NT we would still be meeting in houses and I know I don't want several hundred people at my house every Sunday. :wacko:

Tom,

You didn't answer the question I raised, so that makes your reply a red herring. You spun off at your own tangent trying to make it look as though it was related. It wasn't.

Why can't you deal with the topic and example I raised?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you for the clarification on Lloyd-Jones. I didn't misunderstand you. I think we were not being very clear to each other. I apologize.

I agree with you that baptism is not necessary for salvation if the person does not have the opportunity to be baptized before they die (Luke 23:43). However, believing is not just sitting in a Church or at home thinking about it. The word believe is a verb (action).

When we continue reading PAST John 3:16 (believe in Him) we see in verse 22 that baptism then takes place. Believe first, baptism second!

Same with Acts 16:31 (believe) and then verse 33 (baptism). Believe first, baptism second!

As you know there are a considerable number of NT verses that contradict what you believe and the two you mentioned (John and Acts) when one reads the whole story, instead of the partial story you cited, one can easily see that baptism is an important part of salvation practiced and sanctioned by Jesus Christ and his Apostles . Early Christian writings from men who walked and talked with the Apostles also contradict your belief and one can't get more "historical" than them.

It may be easy for you to disregard 1Peter 3:21 and John 3:5 but I refuse to throw out Scripture that doesn't confirm to my personal beliefs. The practice of baptism being symbolic has only been around for 500 years. What I believe about baptism has been taught for 2000 years.

You said, "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."

The only time the words "faith alone" are together in the bible is James 2:24.

Also, since there are passages that support "faith alone" do those passages negate salvation thru baptism passages? If so, wouldn't it be logical to say that the salvation thru baptism passages would negate the faith alone passages? Maybe both are required for Salvation.

I like "Dr. Google" but there's nothing like having a book in your hand to highlight and underline important sentences.....So about 2 months ago I bought a book on the writings of the Church Fathers.

Tom,

‘Believe first, baptism second’, as you state, does not confirm baptismal regeneration.
I am not avoiding Scripture regarding baptism and salvation.
Take 1 Peter 3:21 (ESV) as an example. This exposition proves other than what you are trying to promote: Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? (GotQuestions?org)
Then you want to bring in John 3:5 (ESV) and Nicodemus’s misundersting, to confirm born of ‘water’ (baptism) and the Spirit. You have not attempted to deal with the many different interpretations of the meaning of this verse. Yes, there are many who find in ‘water’ a reference to baptism but there are also many exegetes who see in ‘water’ a reference to other than baptism. D A Carson’s commentary on John 3:5 deals with the various issues raised and concludes:

The most plausible interpretation of ‘born of water and the Spirit’ turns on three factors. First, the expression is parallel to ‘from above’ (anothen, v. 3), and so only one birth is in view. Second, the preposition ‘of’ governs both ‘water’ and ‘spirit’. The most natural way of taking this is to see the phrase as a conceptual unity; there is a water-spirit source…. that stands as the origin of this regeneration. Third, Jesus berates Nicodemus for not understanding these things in his role as ‘Israel’s teacher’ (v. 10), a senior ‘professor’ of the Scriptures, and this in turn suggests we must turn to what Christians call the Old Testament to begin to discern what Jesus had in mind (Carson 1991:194).

Therefore, Carson (a sound evangelical exegete) concludes that the meaning of John 3:5 is that ‘born of water and spirit (the article and the capital ‘S’ in the NIV should be dropped: the focus is on the impartation of God’s nature as ‘spirit’ [cf. 4:24], not on the Holy Spirit as such) signals a new begetting, a new birth that cleanses and renews, the eschatological cleansing and renewal promised by the Old Testament prophets’ (Carson 1991:195).

For someone like myself who is a long-term evangelical Christian with a long history of studying Scripture in depth, I find that your comment, 'As you know there are a considerable number of NT verses that contradict what you believe and the two you mentioned', is wide of the mark. My interpretation is different from yours, but it DOES NOT contradict the rest of Scripture. It is in harmony with the rest of Scripture, but not your interpretation of Scripture.

Oz

Works consulted
Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[Lady Daffodil]

It is diablical to attack other Christians just b/c of disagreements on doctrine, etc.. when all that time spent criticizing them could be spent on attack the real enemy: the devil and all humans who listen to him

I agree with you. :)

 

[ScaliaFan]

Catholicism cannot trace it's roots to Christ for two reason:

1. The ROCK upon which Jesus said He would establish His church was not "Petros", the "small, unstable pebble" who constantly suffered from foot-in-mouth disease, but the "Petra", the confession that "Petros" made when Jesus asked him who He was - that Jesus Christ was the Son of the living God.
2. Jesus transfer of the "keys" has nothing to do with granting a sinful man the authority to either grant or deny salvation, which power Matthew 28:18 KJV ascribes to Jesus alone and in Revelation 3:7 KJV He Himself declares that He has not relinquished it. The "keys" which Jesus handed Peter have to do with "binding and loosing" in the context of the authority of the church over temporal matters, not the eternal, as shown above. Moreover, this authority is not autonomous as is taught by blind Papal authorities leading equally blind Catholic laity, but was ever to be based on the unquestionable, preeminent authority of the Word of God. Only then would any earthly decisions receive a heavenly stamp of approval.

The twisted logic of the preeminence of Papal authority has led to such blasphemous statements as this from the handbook of priests, "Dignities and Duties of the Priest":

"And God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution...The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it."

No wonder the Reformation, which you claim is responsible for the schism in Christianity, identified the Papacy as the Antichrist of prophecy, to which I stand in firm agreement.

i dont have much time left to go into details (today)

but you couldn't be more wrong

those of us who study history know that there was ONE Christian Church in the world until Luther, the arch-heretic came along. Luther had deep psychological problesm as he was abused by both parents.. (etc...)

not all his 95 Thesis was rejected by the RCC but about half of it was.. A big one was osas. The RCC said it is a false doctrine. You either believe the Church Christ founded or a human being... who rejected that Church, went against his priestly vows and committed many immoral acts, was a vile person, in the words he used, etc. A book u can read is The FActs ABout Luther

but again, you either believe THE Church... or some disgruntled human being outside the Church


your choice

human or divine??

 

[mjrhealth]

but again, you either believe THE Church... or some disgruntled human being outside the Church

I would rather believe God than man made doctrines, but still I find few who do actually believe God. there is a whole book written on "revelation".

It is diablical to attack other Christians just b/c of disagreements on doctrine, etc.. when all that time spent criticizing them could be spent on attack the real enemy: the devil and all humans who listen to him

Its not when teh doctrines are from teh devil, and that is not attacking its teaching the truth. The pharrisees felt the same way when Jesus spoke and they wanted to kill Him

 

[Phoneman777]

i dont have much time left to go into details (today)

but you couldn't be more wrong

those of us who study history know that there was ONE Christian Church in the world until Luther, the arch-heretic came along. Luther had deep psychological problesm as he was abused by both parents.. (etc...)

not all his 95 Thesis was rejected by the RCC but about half of it was.. A big one was osas. The RCC said it is a false doctrine. You either believe the Church Christ founded or a human being... who rejected that Church, went against his priestly vows and committed many immoral acts, was a vile person, in the words he used, etc. A book u can read is The FActs ABout Luther

but again, you either believe THE Church... or some disgruntled human being outside the Church


your choice

human or divine??

You are free to believe that your Pope is "another God on earth" and "Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of flesh" and that his mediation is necessary for salvation, but I'll stick with Scripture which says, "There is ONE God and ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5 KJV

 

[StanJ]

but you couldn't be more wrong
those of us who study history know that there was ONE Christian Church in the world until Luther, the arch-heretic came along. Luther had deep psychological problesm as he was abused by both parents.. (etc...)
not all his 95 Thesis was rejected by the RCC but about half of it was.. A big one was osas. The RCC said it is a false doctrine. You either believe the Church Christ founded or a human being... who rejected that Church, went against his priestly vows and committed many immoral acts, was a vile person, in the words he used, etc. A book u can read is The FActs ABout Luther
but again, you either believe THE Church... or some disgruntled human being outside the Church
your choice
human or divine??

You mean those of you who are inculcated into the RCC? Luther recognized the heretical teachings that he was personally seeing in the RCC and that's why he set out to go against it. When it comes to actually studying you should do so rather than make fallacious assertions. I've already shown you in the past that the RCC didn't have its beginnings until the middle to the end of the 4th century.
No where does the bible tell us we must believe the church. It tells us we must believe God's written word and Jesus's words which are recorded in the Bible. If the RCC's teachings go against what is recorded in the Bible, then they are wrong. It's very simple and not open to any interpretation except if one is trying to preserve an Institution rather than a way of life.
Col 1:15-20
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

This cannot be any plainer for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.

 

[OzSpen]

No where does the bible tell us we must believe the church. It tells us we must believe God's written word and Jesus's words which are recorded in the Bible. If the RCC's teachings go against what is recorded in the Bible, then they are wrong. It's very simple and not open to any interpretation except if one is trying to preserve an Institution rather than a way of life.
Col 1:15-20
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

This cannot be any plainer for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.

Stan,

Where were the people of God able to find God's NT written word, including Jesus's words, in the first 300 years of the church's existence?

Please provide this to me in plain language 'for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see'.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Where were the people of God able to find God's NT written word, including Jesus's words, in the first 300 years of the church's existence?
Please provide this to me in plain language 'for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see'.

I couldn't tell you, as I wasn't there but I know that it was circulated around along with the apostolic teachings. That along with what the ECFs taught, would probably cover it. In any event my post was addressing the context of Scaliafan's post so don't go getting all technical on me.

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

 

[OzSpen]

I couldn't tell you, as I wasn't there but I know that it was circulated around along with the apostolic teachings. That along with what the ECFs taught, would probably cover it. In any event my post was addressing the context of Scaliafan's post so don't go getting all technical on me.

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

That's hardly a reasonable explanation. You weren't there for the writing of the NT either. The facts are that you too easily speak about 'No where does the bible tell us we must believe the church. It tells us we must believe God's written word and Jesus's words which are recorded in the Bible'.

None of God's written word, especially of the NT - including Jesus's words - were freely available in the early church, except through oral tradition that was passed on by the early church leaders. In addition, literacy rates were extremely low in the early centuries. Getting a written copy of God's Word to the ordinary people in the first few centuries AD was nigh impossible, and would have had little value because of illiteracy.

Therefore, the church leaders passing on Scripture was an essential task.

I'm not being technical. I'm being very practical about what happened in the early centuries AD. It's a joke to require people of, say, the first 4 centuries of the church to read their Bibles. It wasn't available to them and most could not read anyway. The Bible was passed on primarily through oral means. Who took responsibility for this? The church and its leaders! :mellow:

Oz

 

[StanJ]

That's hardly a reasonable explanation. You weren't there for the writing of the NT either. The facts are that you too easily speak about 'No where does the bible tell us we must believe the church. It tells us we must believe God's written word and Jesus's words which are recorded in the Bible'.

None of God's written word, especially of the NT - including Jesus's words - were freely available in the early church, except through oral tradition that was passed on by the early church leaders. In addition, literacy rates were extremely low in the early centuries. Getting a written copy of God's Word to the ordinary people in the first few centuries AD was nigh impossible, and would have had little value because of illiteracy.

Therefore, the church leaders passing on Scripture was an essential task.

I'm not being technical. I'm being very practical about what happened in the early centuries AD. It's a joke to require people of, say, the first 4 centuries of the church to read their Bibles. It wasn't available to them and most could not read anyway. The Bible was passed on primarily through oral means. Who took responsibility for this? The church and its leaders! :mellow:

Oz

That's exactly what I said and I find it very reasonable. Regardless of your opening the point still stands and as you weren't there you don't know. I made a reasonable assumption if you don't like it too bad.
Regardless of the availability of the scriptures to the common folk it was still what the church used to teach. Peter and Paul both spoke of the importance of scripture and I for one except their prospective more than I would yours. It may have been taught early but it was passed on true copies of scripture and even though we may not have the autographs today there are enough copies made that our current scriptures I'm more than reliable enough to make this deduction. Again my response was not to you and you're taking it out of the context that it was given.

 

[OzSpen]

Well you did forget and usually when people put excetera that means I can't remember. I put them down because before the last two you mention they are much larger in North America.

Stan,

You got it badly wrong. You lied about me. When I say, 'etc', I mean exactly what the dictionary means by etcetera, 'Used at the end of a list to indicate that further, similar items are included' (Oxford dictionaries online 2016. s v etcetera'.

I happen to be a former Assemblies of God pastor and Bible College lecturer. I know Pentecostal history like the palm of my hand. Therefore, it's time for you to quit your erroneous assumptions about my knowledge. In this case, you don't know what you are talking about.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

That's exactly what I said and I find it very reasonable. Regardless of your opening the point still stands and as you weren't there you don't know. I made a reasonable assumption if you don't like it too bad.
Regardless of the availability of the scriptures to the common folk it was still what the church used to teach. Peter and Paul both spoke of the importance of scripture and I for one except their prospective more than I would yours. It may have been taught early but it was passed on true copies of scripture and even though we may not have the autographs today there are enough copies made that our current scriptures I'm more than reliable enough to make this deduction. Again my response was not to you and you're taking it out of the context that it was given.

Stan,

However, I do know how to do historical investigation and assess documents from history.

In the early years after the death of the apostles, Stan, the church used oral tradition to pass on the Scriptures - not the written word - because of the lack of literacy and availability of codex documents and papyri to write on.

Peter and Paul talk about the importance of Scripture, but that's primarily referring to the OT (e.g. 2 Tim 3:15-16).

I think you need to do some more study on the transmission of Scripture in the early centuries. All is not as fixed as you are wanting it to be.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

You got it badly wrong. You lied about me. When I say, 'etc', I mean exactly what the dictionary means by etcetera, 'Used at the end of a list to indicate that further, similar items are included' (Oxford dictionaries online 2016. s v etcetera'.
I happen to be a former Assemblies of God pastor and Bible College lecturer. I know Pentecostal history like the palm of my hand. Therefore, it's time for you to quit your erroneous assumptions about my knowledge. In this case, you don't know what you are talking about.

I have no doubt this is what you think but what you think is not always reality. All you do is strive about words instead of actually using them properly. You gotta know stuff like this doesn't impress me. Only those who want to impress others have to tell others about their accomplishments. I would be more impressed if you actually contributed positively here instead of always being negative.

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

However, I do know how to do historical investigation and assess documents from history.

In the early years after the death of the apostles, Stan, the church used oral tradition to pass on the Scriptures - not the written word - because of the lack of literacy and availability of codex documents and papyri to write on.

Peter and Paul talk about the importance of Scripture, but that's primarily referring to the OT (e.g. 2 Tim 3:15-16).

I think you need to do some more study on the transmission of Scripture in the early centuries. All is not as fixed as you are wanting it to be.

Oz

And apparently you think you're the only one that knows how to do historical investigations and assess documents from history?

I supplied the link in the post you commented on and apparently you didn't read it. The church, not to be confused with the RCC, taught from scripture, so if you want to call that oral tradition, that's up to you, but it wasn't man's tradition it was God's word that they preached and taught. Despite your efforts to take my post out of context, it was directed at someone who was talking about the present day RCC and how it is divine and infallible in it's teachings. For someone who keeps on telling me they're not going to address me anymore and put me on ignore, you sure have a bad habit of coming in and interjecting where you're not wanted. Do me a favor put me on permanent ignore.

 

[OzSpen]

I have no doubt this is what you think but what you think is not always reality. All you do is strive about words instead of actually using them properly. You gotta know stuff like this doesn't impress me. Only those who want to impress others have to tell others about their accomplishments. I would be more impressed if you actually contributed positively here instead of always being negative.

Stan,

Again you refused to address what I wrote. It's another red herring fallacy. We can't have a logical conversation when you continue to do this.

I was not bragging about my accomplishments. I was correcting your falsehood about me. When will you get it?

Oz