- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I found this here – http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=379760 – and thought it was beautifully put:
Protestantism Produces Anarchy, And Not Authentic Christian Unity in Our Lord
We must look at who God is. Jesus is the King, who is ruler of a Kingdom. The King has authority over His Kingdom, and has established a hierarchical structure with authority to rule and teach to the group of subjects in His Earthly Kingdom. The King didn't have to, but did establish a Prime Minister (foreshadowed in the OT) in His earthly Kingdom, and desires that all His people be one in His teachings, each believing the same teachings as the truth. This is an ordered Kingdom. The Kingdom has a Queen, for whom a place had been reserved and protected. The King has rules and proclamations and ways to bestow grace and bind His people to Him. We must know without error what these proclamations teach. We must know as much as we can about the authentic truth of our Lord, Jesus the King of Heaven and Earth.
Jesus established an authority on earth before ascending to His throne in Heaven, and this was recorded in the NT Scriptures written years afterward. This authority was bestowed first on His Apostles, of which he also established one as Head Apostle, a Prime Minister to whom he alone was given the keys of authority for God’s earthly Kingdom, which would be ruled as it is ruled in Heaven. Jesus said that the Authority (Magisterium) would be guided to all truth. Jesus also said this Church He built would never be prevailed over by the gates of Hell. His Bride, the Church was created as He hung on the holy cross, and then with the Holy Spirit began to carry out its worldwide mission beginning on Pentecost Sunday, where Peter’s preaching brought 3,000 into the Church, Jesus’ earthly Kingdom that day. The Church Baptized, confirmed, performed marriages, forgave the sins of men, performed remembrance of Jesus’ Body and Blood in what appears to be bread and wine, anointed the sick, and ordained other Bishops and helpers to continue this mission as the Church spread to fulfill the great commission given by Christ.
Approximately 1,500 years after God's Church was created, the foundations of Protestantism were laid which include rejection of the idea of pope, rejection of the sacramental priesthood in general, rejection of five of the seven Sacraments, acceptance of Bible alone as complete and sufficient rule of faith, belief in Salvation by one’s faith alone, etc. Applying these foundational principles leads to each man and his Bible being considered as a completely sufficient faith system. No actual outside authority is present to guide the believer to all truth, settle doctrinal questions and differences, and make sure what they’re believing is accurate as Christ intended. Protestants disagree with each other at every turn of the page of the Bible, and who is there to reconcile them into God’s truth… no one is. Beliefs taught within Protestant faiths can vary not just by local custom, but in serious matters of doctrine, so as to deny each other and be irreconcilable. These fractured groups teach different and conflicting things about our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, based on their own personal interpretations of the Bible. With Protestantism, there is a fragmentation of the body of believers which continues like a ripple in a pond. This is the basis for anarchy and not a basis for unity.
So in the Protestant ecclesial communities, we see no authentic link to the Apostolic authority established by Christ, and so these have no final authority on matters, and do not resemble a kingdom, but rather are unassociated adhocracies where individuals and groups compete with each other, each teaching some truth but some falsehood about the King Jesus. These individuals all reading the King’s proclamations for themselves and deciding what they want to believe about them leads to moral relativity of each having their own “truth,” and there is chaos among believers. Since they reject the office of Prime Minister of King Jesus, they have no office of final authority in matters regarding the King. A terrible casualty in this is a weak relationship with our Lord, and lack of authentic truth about Him. This can’t be underestimated. There is also a weak or nonexistent relationship with the mother Jesus gave to the Disciple He loves (which includes all of His faithful), His mother the Queen Mother at His right hand in Heaven. This is not done by disobedience to the model of Protestantism, but by deliberate adherence to the model of Protestantism. We say rightly that Protestantism is the pillar and foundation of anarchy. Protestantism is a method by which men create and adhere to their own doctrines, as long as they can claim that it is related somehow to their interpretations of the Bible. They have no assurance of being correct, and therefore have no assurance of actually following God. Why? It’s simply because these separated and separate ecclesial communities were started primarily on men’s pride, and not by God. God would never and in fact did not give us a Church that cannot provide assurance of His truths, and cannot provide unity as He asked. Individually, Protestants will vehemently disagree with me, but collectively they clearly and overwhelmingly illustrate this point about Protestantism's anarchy and lack of unity in teachings, which are in grave opposition to that which Christ asked of us.
One needs only to look honestly and truthfully at the Catholic Church, which built by Christ, has faithfully been His Earthly Kingdom for almost 2,000 years now, ruled by the King and protected by the Holy Spirit. The order and unity of God’s Kingdom is found in His one Catholic Church, which teaches consistent truth about Christ, ministers the Covenant made by Christ, and serves the earthly Kingdom so we can be united with the King in His Heavenly Kingdom. The Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church is in the model of the Kingdom that Christ established and is able to provide truth and unity for the people who seek the God.
Hi CA,
Jesus Christ did not build such a monstrosity.
He would be ashamed of her rebellion if he was their leader.I found this here – http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=379760 – and thought it was beautifully put:
Protestantism Produces Anarchy, And Not Authentic Christian Unity in Our Lord
We must look at who God is. Jesus is the King, who is ruler of a Kingdom. The King has authority over His Kingdom, and has established a hierarchical structure with authority to rule and teach to the group of subjects in His Earthly Kingdom. The King didn't have to, but did establish a Prime Minister (foreshadowed in the OT) in His earthly Kingdom, and desires that all His people be one in His teachings, each believing the same teachings as the truth. This is an ordered Kingdom. The Kingdom has a Queen, for whom a place had been reserved and protected. The King has rules and proclamations and ways to bestow grace and bind His people to Him. We must know without error what these proclamations teach. We must know as much as we can about the authentic truth of our Lord, Jesus the King of Heaven and Earth.
Jesus established an authority on earth before ascending to His throne in Heaven, and this was recorded in the NT Scriptures written years afterward. This authority was bestowed first on His Apostles, of which he also established one as Head Apostle, a Prime Minister to whom he alone was given the keys of authority for God’s earthly Kingdom, which would be ruled as it is ruled in Heaven. Jesus said that the Authority (Magisterium) would be guided to all truth. Jesus also said this Church He built would never be prevailed over by the gates of Hell. His Bride, the Church was created as He hung on the holy cross, and then with the Holy Spirit began to carry out its worldwide mission beginning on Pentecost Sunday, where Peter’s preaching brought 3,000 into the Church, Jesus’ earthly Kingdom that day. The Church Baptized, confirmed, performed marriages, forgave the sins of men, performed remembrance of Jesus’ Body and Blood in what appears to be bread and wine, anointed the sick, and ordained other Bishops and helpers to continue this mission as the Church spread to fulfill the great commission given by Christ.
Approximately 1,500 years after God's Church was created, the foundations of Protestantism were laid which include rejection of the idea of pope, rejection of the sacramental priesthood in general, rejection of five of the seven Sacraments, acceptance of Bible alone as complete and sufficient rule of faith, belief in Salvation by one’s faith alone, etc. Applying these foundational principles leads to each man and his Bible being considered as a completely sufficient faith system. No actual outside authority is present to guide the believer to all truth, settle doctrinal questions and differences, and make sure what they’re believing is accurate as Christ intended. Protestants disagree with each other at every turn of the page of the Bible, and who is there to reconcile them into God’s truth… no one is. Beliefs taught within Protestant faiths can vary not just by local custom, but in serious matters of doctrine, so as to deny each other and be irreconcilable. These fractured groups teach different and conflicting things about our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, based on their own personal interpretations of the Bible. With Protestantism, there is a fragmentation of the body of believers which continues like a ripple in a pond. This is the basis for anarchy and not a basis for unity.
So in the Protestant ecclesial communities, we see no authentic link to the Apostolic authority established by Christ, and so these have no final authority on matters, and do not resemble a kingdom, but rather are unassociated adhocracies where individuals and groups compete with each other, each teaching some truth but some falsehood about the King Jesus. These individuals all reading the King’s proclamations for themselves and deciding what they want to believe about them leads to moral relativity of each having their own “truth,” and there is chaos among believers. Since they reject the office of Prime Minister of King Jesus, they have no office of final authority in matters regarding the King. A terrible casualty in this is a weak relationship with our Lord, and lack of authentic truth about Him. This can’t be underestimated. There is also a weak or nonexistent relationship with the mother Jesus gave to the Disciple He loves (which includes all of His faithful), His mother the Queen Mother at His right hand in Heaven. This is not done by disobedience to the model of Protestantism, but by deliberate adherence to the model of Protestantism. We say rightly that Protestantism is the pillar and foundation of anarchy. Protestantism is a method by which men create and adhere to their own doctrines, as long as they can claim that it is related somehow to their interpretations of the Bible. They have no assurance of being correct, and therefore have no assurance of actually following God. Why? It’s simply because these separated and separate ecclesial communities were started primarily on men’s pride, and not by God. God would never and in fact did not give us a Church that cannot provide assurance of His truths, and cannot provide unity as He asked. Individually, Protestants will vehemently disagree with me, but collectively they clearly and overwhelmingly illustrate this point about Protestantism's anarchy and lack of unity in teachings, which are in grave opposition to that which Christ asked of us.
One needs only to look honestly and truthfully at the Catholic Church, which built by Christ, has faithfully been His Earthly Kingdom for almost 2,000 years now, ruled by the King and protected by the Holy Spirit. The order and unity of God’s Kingdom is found in His one Catholic Church, which teaches consistent truth about Christ, ministers the Covenant made by Christ, and serves the earthly Kingdom so we can be united with the King in His Heavenly Kingdom. The Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church is in the model of the Kingdom that Christ established and is able to provide truth and unity for the people who seek the God.
So in the Protestant ecclesial communities, we see no authentic link to the Apostolic authority established by Christ, and so these have no final authority on matters, and do not resemble a kingdom, but rather are unassociated adhocracies where individuals and groups compete with each other, each teaching some truth but some falsehood about the King Jesus. These individuals all reading the King’s proclamations for themselves and deciding what they want to believe about them leads to moral relativity of each having their own “truth,” and there is chaos among believers. Since they reject the office of Prime Minister of King Jesus, they have no office of final authority in matters regarding the King. A terrible casualty in this is a weak relationship with our Lord, and lack of authentic truth about Him. This can’t be underestimated. There is also a weak or nonexistent relationship with the mother Jesus gave to the Disciple He loves (which includes all of His faithful), His mother the Queen Mother at His right hand in Heaven. This is not done by disobedience to the model of Protestantism, but by deliberate adherence to the model of Protestantism. We say rightly that Protestantism is the pillar and foundation of anarchy. Protestantism is a method by which men create and adhere to their own doctrines, as long as they can claim that it is related somehow to their interpretations of the Bible. They have no assurance of being correct, and therefore have no assurance of actually following God. Why? It’s simply because these separated and separate ecclesial communities were started primarily on men’s pride, and not by God. God would never and in fact did not give us a Church that cannot provide assurance of His truths, and cannot provide unity as He asked. Individually, Protestants will vehemently disagree with me, but collectively they clearly and overwhelmingly illustrate this point about Protestantism's anarchy and lack of unity in teachings, which are in grave opposition to that which Christ asked of us.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 06 2009,01:33) So in the Protestant ecclesial communities, we see no authentic link to the Apostolic authority established by Christ, and so these have no final authority on matters, and do not resemble a kingdom, but rather are unassociated adhocracies where individuals and groups compete with each other, each teaching some truth but some falsehood about the King Jesus. These individuals all reading the King’s proclamations for themselves and deciding what they want to believe about them leads to moral relativity of each having their own “truth,” and there is chaos among believers. Since they reject the office of Prime Minister of King Jesus, they have no office of final authority in matters regarding the King. A terrible casualty in this is a weak relationship with our Lord, and lack of authentic truth about Him. This can’t be underestimated. There is also a weak or nonexistent relationship with the mother Jesus gave to the Disciple He loves (which includes all of His faithful), His mother the Queen Mother at His right hand in Heaven. This is not done by disobedience to the model of Protestantism, but by deliberate adherence to the model of Protestantism. We say rightly that Protestantism is the pillar and foundation of anarchy. Protestantism is a method by which men create and adhere to their own doctrines, as long as they can claim that it is related somehow to their interpretations of the Bible. They have no assurance of being correct, and therefore have no assurance of actually following God. Why? It’s simply because these separated and separate ecclesial communities were started primarily on men’s pride, and not by God. God would never and in fact did not give us a Church that cannot provide assurance of His truths, and cannot provide unity as He asked. Individually, Protestants will vehemently disagree with me, but collectively they clearly and overwhelmingly illustrate this point about Protestantism's anarchy and lack of unity in teachings, which are in grave opposition to that which Christ asked of us.
CAAnd yet Jesus who is the head of his Body and the King of hs Kingdom through his eternal Spirit calls and annoints many Protestants with the Holy ghost and confirms their preaching and teaching with signs and wonders by many being saved, sanctified and filled with the Holy Ghost and many being set free from the bodages of sin, and the world the flesh and the devil.
And because they are not Catholic you call them “the pillar and foundation of anarchy”.
Basically you have limited the Spirit of God that is being poured out on all flesh to an organisation of men which you call the “only true Church” the CC.
When I see God moving in my church as he does as well as many others it is not “anarchy”, but it is the demonstration of the Kingdom of God with power which is not by outward observation but that which is within the hearts of men and woman that do know their God!
Blessings WJ
Hi CA,
You deposed the King and installed a vicar, the pope, and ignored the Lord Jesus's teachings in favour of your traditions.
Get real.CatholicApologist,
I am not sure if many of us are qualified to defend Protestants since we are not ourselves necessary Protestantism as some of us follow doctrines that existed before the Catholic Church came to be an unified church under the Roman state.
The Catholic Church is one example while the separation of Church in state is probably a good idea in a world ruled by Satan.
The Catholic Church as part of the Roman government started off its history by declaring war on the Donatist Christian sect, which they probably call Protestants now. The were led by the the one they call Saint Constantine I. It sounds like he might have gotten a demotion from a god to a saint on his conversion but that may be two different titles for the same job.
The Catholic Church was not overly friendly to the Jews and that extended to prohibiting Christians from celebrating Easter on the day before the Jewish passover. That policy even contradicted the teaching of at least one of their “Saints”.
It sounds like the Catholic policy started our as agree with us or we will strive to kill you off.
That is ignoring the instruction of the one they call “Saint” Paul.
Ephesians 6:12(NIV) reads:
Quote For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 06 2009,18:57) CatholicApologist, I am not sure if many of us are qualified to defend Protestants since we are not ourselves necessary Protestantism as some of us follow doctrines that existed before the Catholic Church came to be an unified church under the Roman state.
The Catholic Church is one example while the separation of Church in state is probably a good idea in a world ruled by Satan.
The Catholic Church as part of the Roman government started off its history by declaring war on the Donatist Christian sect, which they probably call Protestants now. The were led by the the one they call Saint Constantine I. It sounds like he might have gotten a demotion from a god to a saint on his conversion but that may be two different titles for the same job.
The Catholic Church was not overly friendly to the Jews and that extended to prohibiting Christians from celebrating Easter on the day before the Jewish passover. That policy even contradicted the teaching of at least one of their “Saints”.
It sounds like the Catholic policy started our as agree with us or we will strive to kill you off.
That is ignoring the instruction of the one they call “Saint” Paul.
Ephesians 6:12(NIV) reads:
Quote For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
DONATISMBy PATRICK MADRID
Dates
311-411Founder
Donatus of Carthage (d. 355Background to controversy
Jesus said, “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). This grim edict is a fitting epitaph for the short-lived but intense heresy of Donatism. Its hundred-year life-span–a rather brief one, as heresies go–was marked from beginning to end with violence and death.
North Africa was roiling in political, social, ethnic, and religious controversies when, in 311, Donatus, schismatic bishop of Carthage, replaced Majorinus, rival of the validly elected bishop Caecilianus. Donatus was a shrewd leader with impressive intellectual and rhetorical abilities. He had a skill for exploiting to his own advantage the ethnic unrest that simmered among the Berbers and Punics. These rustic people chafed under the rule of the Latin-speaking Roman Empire, and Donatus skillfully harnessed their discontent as the engine of growth for his heresy.
The schism had gotten under way before Donatus came to power, but it became identified with him thereafter. His predecessor, Majorinus, was elected as a rival bishop in Carthage because the bishops who had elected Caecilianus had dealt leniently with the traditores, men and women whose faith was compromised during Diocletian's brief but bloody persecution, initiated in February, 303. The Catholic Church was outlawed, and professing the Catholic faith was a crime punishable by death. Those who refused to offer incense to Roman idols were executed. Churches were razed, relics and sacred vessels were seized, and any copy of Scripture that could be found was burned.
The traditores were those who renounced Christ to avoid martyrdom or who, when their churches and houses were searched by the Roman authorities, handed over sacred artifacts rather than face death. In light of the many who endured martyrdom rather than renounce Christ, those who survived the persecution (which ended in 305) were outraged that priests and deacons who were traditores were allowed to resume their ministry after being reconciled to the Church through confession. This perceived injustice provoked a popular backlash with grave theological implications.
Principal errors
Majorinus and other leaders of this faction asserted that the sacraments were invalid, even wicked in the eyes of God, if dispensed by a traditor bishop, priest, or deacon. This view expanded to include clergy who were in a state of mortal sin of whatever sort.
By denying the intrinsic efficacy of the sacraments the Donatists claimed the sacraments could be celebrated validly only by those in the state of grace. They required the re-baptism of any Catholic who came over to their sect.
Donatists had the outward forms of Catholicism, including bishops, priests, and deacons, Mass, and the veneration of the relics of martyrs. The heresy of Donatism lay not primarily in the denial of particular Catholic doctrines but in the assertion that only “sinless” men could administer the sacraments validly. The schism was effected by the rejection of the lawful authority of validly-elected Catholic bishops and culminated in illicit but valid ordinations of schismatic bishops, priests, and deacons.
Growth of the heresy
Donatus advanced his theology with vigor, drawing over many of the common folk who were fed up with Roman imperial rule and who began to equate Catholicism with foreign domination. His organizational skills and charismatic personality attracted huge numbers to his cause. He ordained hundreds, who fanned out across Numidia to establish schismatic churches.
Church historian Frederick van der Meer describes Donatism's proliferation:
“It was the strangest mixture of African and Numidian particularism, early Christian idealism, and personal resentment, but the Church which it created rose up in every town and locality as a rival to the Church Catholic, altar set against altar in every neighborhood where a Catholic church was to be found. Everywhere at the edges of the ancient towns two great basilicas towered over the houses, one Catholic, one non-Catholic. . . . Donatism was from its inception a popular movement, poor in original ideas, but nevertheless full of people who were easily inflamed and drawing from these its principal strength. Indeed, once the leaders had got the Punic-speaking masses on to their side, no power on earth could heal the schism” (Augustine the Bishop [London: Sheed and Ward, 1961], 80-81).
Donatists adopted “Deo laudes” (“God be praised”) as a their slogan to counter the ancient Catholic “Deo gratias” (“Thanks be to God”). This was the rallying cry with which they harangued Catholics. One distinctive characteristic of the Donatists was their desire for martyrdom. Donatus taught that death for the “cause,” even death by suicide, was holy and merited a martyr's crown and eternal life. They did their best to incite Catholics and pagans to kill them. When their provocations failed, they sometimes took their own lives, a favored method being to leap from high cliffs with the cry “Deo laudes!”
A humorous if bizarre incident is recounted by Augustine. He tells of a Catholic man who was accosted by a group of zealous Donatists. They threatened to kill him if he refused to “martyr” them. Thinking quickly, he agreed to kill them, but only if they first allowed him to bind them with rope to make his work easier. They consented, and when he had them secured he took a large stick, beat them soundly, and walked away.
In keeping with their penchant for violence there arose among the Donatists a vile faction known as the Circumcellions. These ruffians' main goal was to harass, despoil, and even kill Catholics. They preyed on the cellae (farms, rural chapels, and country estates). Although Donatus himself was not a Circumcellion, he gave tacit approval to the depredations of these gangs and wielded influence through them to force Catholics to convert to his religion. Those who refused were relieved of their property or the
ir lives.In a letter to Victorinius, a Spanish priest, Augustine lamented, “We too have nothing but misery here, for instead of the barbarians we have the Circumcellions, and it is an open question which is the worse of the two. They murder and burn everywhere, throw lime and vinegar into the eyes of our priests; only yesterday I heard of forty-eight helpless persons who were compelled to submit to [Donatist] rebaptism in this place” (Letter 111:1-2).
While killing Catholics was a favored pastime, the principal aim of the Circumcellions was the destruction of Catholic churches, Bible manuscripts, and sacred objects. This aroused the ire of the government, which enacted anti-Donatist laws which confiscated their property and forced their re-entry into the Catholic Church. The North African Catholic bishops welcomed the first intervention, but not the second.
Orthodox response
Originally Augustine opposed the eradication of heresy by force (cf. Letter 23), preferring argumentation to physical coercion. He believed that heresy must never be tolerated, but that heretics themselves must never be forced to join the Church. As time wore on, Augustine's view changed as he warmed to the idea of the state having a role in the suppression of heresy after the theological persuasions failed. He is regarded by some historians as being the “Father of the Inquisition” since he became a supporter of the state's right to suppress heresy (cf. Letter 185).
Although Optatus of Milevis was the first notable bishop to write against the Donatists in The Schism of the Donatists, it was the indefatigable Augustine who, in numerous works almost single-handedly demolished the Donatist challenge. He gave a biblical and theological explanation of the sacraments (especially baptism, the Eucharist, and holy orders), of the unity of the Church, and of the evils of schism.
This energetic bishop was not content to rely solely on the pen. He engaged Donatist apologists in public debates, knowing that public disputations would draw crowds of Catholics and Donatists; the Catholics would be strengthened and the Donatists converted. Augustine was as forceful and brilliant an orator (he had received excellent training in rhetoric during his youth) as he was an author, and even the most skilled Donatist spokesmen were no match for him.
He even composed apologetics songs designed to inculcate Catholic doctrine and refute Donatism, notes van der Meer. “Augustine did not neglect to protect his people from the insidious effect of Donatist catchwords, and sometimes to the detriment of good artistic taste. It was probably as early as 393 that he composed an alphabetical psalm against the the Donatist party for the more unlettered among his followers. This tells in very simple verses the story of the origin and development of the schism, its malice, and the only possible cure for it. . . . He wanted the nature of the Donatist issue brought to the knowledge of the simplest person and thus to stamp it into the memory of even the most uneducated” (van der Meer, 104-105).
This hymn was long (293 verses) and employed a melody and poetic meter that was popular among the common people who were accustomed to singing similar songs (with profane lyrics, of course) in taverns and theaters. Catholics learned the hymn enthusiastically and sang it in public as a rebuke to the Donatists. Under Augustine's aggressive leadership the Catholic Church in North Africa gradually overpowered the Donatists by force of argument. In time entire Donatist congregations and even dioceses came back to the Catholic Church.
By 411 the Donatists were still quite numerous in Numidia and the rest Northern Africa, but, with their theological errors so thoroughly refuted by Augustine, Optatus, and other Catholic apologists, their vigor waned quickly, though it would take two centuries more before they finally disappeared. In keeping with its violent past, the last vestiges of Donatism vanished in the seventh century as its adherents were mowed down by the sword of Islam, the cry of “Deo laudes” being replaced by “Alahu Akbar,” which heralded the Muslim subjugation of North Africa.
Modern parallels
In its retention of the all of the liturgical externals of Catholicism and most of its doctrines while rejecting a single doctrine or practice, Donatism is mirrored by groups that might be characterized as rigorist. Among similar groups have been the Jansenists of Port Royal (seventeenth through nineteenth centuries) and certain “Traditionalist Catholic” factions of our own time.
The Donatist heresy of rebaptism is alive in the Baptistic churches of Protestantism, although Baptists do not regard baptism as a means of grace and regeneration as the Donatists did. The Donatist tactic of forcing Catholics to “convert” to their heresy was adopted by the Calvinists (especially under John Calvin in Geneva) and most notoriously by the Anglicans (under King Henry VIII, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and Queen Elizabeth I).
Hi CA,
But you offer death and not life.
You sacramentally baptise those unable to agree or repent.
True baptism in the name of Jesus is necessary for those from such pagan backgrounds.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2009,06:24) Hi CA,
But you offer death and not life.
You sacramentally baptise those unable to agree or repent.
True baptism in the name of Jesus is necessary for those from such pagan backgrounds.
The pre-Christian Hebrews circumcised “those unable to agree or repent.” Baptism replaced circumcision. (Go read Col. 2)Yet you are ignorant of these things?
Hi CA,
Indeed it is the new circumcision.
And those Paul wrote too were adults and not infants.
No clear baptism of infants in the name of Jesus is recorded in the manual, Acts.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2009,07:32) Hi CA,
Indeed it is the new circumcision.
And those Paul wrote too were adults and not infants.
No clear baptism of infants in the name of Jesus is recorded in the manual, Acts.
Acts is not a manual.Hi CA,
So the obedient actions of those who heard directly from the Lord Jesus is not much of a guide for you compared with the intellectual speculations that flow from Rome?The assumption of the Protestant Reformers that the Bible contains an adequate account of all that is necessary for a Christian to believe accounts to a great extent for the widespread Protestant prejudice against “tradition,” which unfortunately is understood by them as implying a merely human tradition, far removed from Catholic doctrine on the subject. For, where it is a question of the transmission of revealed truths in the Church, the Catholic doctrine is concerned, not with any merely human traditions, but with what is known as divine tradition – that is, with truths originally revealed by God and handed down in the Church under the protection of the Holy Spirit against all dangers of distortion or perversion.
Now it is certain that there were many important doctrines taught by Christ and by the apostles which were not written down in the books of the New Testament, books which were essentially of a fragmentary character. As a matter of fact, as we have already seen, it was not until some twenty or thirty years after the foundation of the Church that even part of the apostolic preaching which we have in the New Testament was committed to writing.
What the first Christians treasured was the apostolic teaching, a teaching which has been preserved in the Church partly by the New Testament writings, partly by tradition. So St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, “Brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:14). St. Jude speaks of the necessity of maintaining “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). He does not speak of that part of it only which was written in the books of the New Testament. Christian teaching in its fullness, not merely the part of it which was written in the New Testament, has been preserved in the official teachings of the Catholic Church.
The transmission of traditional doctrines, however, must not be thought of as a kind of mechanical and continuous handing on by word of mouth from age to age of every express teaching of Christ and of the apostles, over and above that written down in the New Testament. Some of these doctrines may be found recorded in the writings of the early Christian Fathers, but only those which came within the scope of the particular subjects which happened to engage their attention. Others may be discovered from a study of archaeological inscriptions, or of religious customs prevailing among the faithful, or of disciplinary canons and liturgical books. But all these are only points, as it were, where the living consciousness of the Church breaks through to the surface.
Hi CA,
Sort of like a great white looking for victims?
You cannot save anyone by offering them your rituals and religious mysteries.Please give this a listen:
Hi CA,
By every means possible the catholic church has hoped to justify it's false claim to have some sort of anointing and authority from God.Their fruit exposes them and only they believe it has any truth.
No doubt this will set off another round of claimed martyrdom.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 07 2009,02:27) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2009,06:24) Hi CA,
But you offer death and not life.
You sacramentally baptise those unable to agree or repent.
True baptism in the name of Jesus is necessary for those from such pagan backgrounds.
The pre-Christian Hebrews circumcised “those unable to agree or repent.” Baptism replaced circumcision. (Go read Col. 2)Yet you are ignorant of these things?
The assumption you make is that the rite of circumcision = the rite of baptism and that is not correct.If you remember John the Baptizer immersed people who repented in water for the remission of their sins. I cannot see how a child unable to comprehend can repent.
Circumcision is not done for the remission of the individuals sins.
Paul chose to use circumcision as an allegory in at least one of his letters which does not mean receiving the Spirit is literally equivalent to being circumcised though their are some superficial similarities.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 08 2009,16:38) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 07 2009,02:27) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2009,06:24) Hi CA,
But you offer death and not life.
You sacramentally baptise those unable to agree or repent.
True baptism in the name of Jesus is necessary for those from such pagan backgrounds.
The pre-Christian Hebrews circumcised “those unable to agree or repent.” Baptism replaced circumcision. (Go read Col. 2)Yet you are ignorant of these things?
The assumption you make is that the rite of circumcision = the rite of baptism and that is not correct.If you remember John the Baptizer immersed people who repented in water for the remission of their sins. I cannot see how a child unable to comprehend can repent.
Circumcision is not done for the remission of the individuals sins.
Paul chose to use circumcision as an allegory in at least one of his letters which does not mean receiving the Spirit is literally equivalent to being circumcised though their are some superficial similarities.
I'm not making any assumptions (personally). I'm giving you generally known Divine revelation. Kick against the pricks to your own detriment.You say: “Circumcision is not done for the remission of the individuals sins.”
Yet you are ignorant of the fact that baptism is the entrance INTO the body of Christ through His death, burial and resurrection. Forgiveness of sins is the benefit. But primarily baptism is entrance into Christ. Consider the following verses:
“Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?” – Rom. 6:3
“For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. ” – Gal. 3:27
It is through entrance into the mystical body of Christ that salvation is gained. (“mystical” does not specify physical or spiritual in the sense I'm using it)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
