- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote All I did was ask you how you know John submerged Jesus seeing that you were not there and that the scriptures do not say that Jesus was submerged. 1. The word baptism literally means “immerse.”
2. Mark 1:9, 10: “Jesus . . . was baptized [“immersed,” ED, Ro] in the Jordan [River] by John. And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.”
3. John selected a location in the Jordan Valley near Salim to baptize, “because there was a great quantity of water there.” (Joh 3:23)Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,00:30) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 03 2009,07:55) Quote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,15:32) Quote I was the founding pastor for two different congregations. Finally. I knew it.
The average Catholic would have left after the first minute, after someone started using the Bible.:D
Seriously, you are nowhere near the average Catholic. The average Catholic, or the average person who claims to be Catholic does not really care too much about these things. They go to church, or maybe they only go on Christmas and Easter. But that's it.
Hi DavidIf I am not mistaken the Catholics are not allowed to discuss scriptures for there is “no private interpretation” and only the “infallable Pope” or Priest can exegete scripture properly!
WJ
But alas you are mistaken.Why do I get the feeling that you are reveling in you utter ignorance of the Catholic church? Let me guess, you are a mainline denominational Protestant?
Let me give you an example of our exegesis of Scripture. This is from Haydock's Bible Commentary on 2 Pet. 1:20,21:
Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) — The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ver. 21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)
Hi CAQuote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,00:30) The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ahh, so the Spirit of truth is limited to the Catholic Church?Yes, you are right, I am a Protestant, and this is one of the reasons why!
WJ
Quote (david @ Sep. 04 2009,02:11) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 03 2009,20:12) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 03 2009,10:52) Hi TT,
So is was not recorded as such but you assumed?
Then chide Irene for her similar actions?
Numbers 19:17-18 says that baptism occurred by sprinkling with the hyssop branch. Jesus said that not jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. So John could not have submerged Jesus or else he was breaking the law of Moses.thinker
That was no law.But if it was, he broke it.
Mark 1:9, 10: “Jesus . . . was baptized [“immersed,” ED, Ro] in the Jordan [River] by John. And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.”
John selected a location in the Jordan Valley near Salim to baptize, “because there was a great quantity of water there.” (Joh 3:23)
The Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized when they came to “a body of water.” They both “went down into the water.” Afterward they came “up out of the water.” (Ac 8:36-40) All these instances imply, not a small ankle-deep pool, but a large body of water into and out of which they would have to walk. Further, the fact that baptism was also used to symbolize a burial indicates complete submersion.—Ro 6:4-6; Col 2:12.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. II, p. 56) states: “It is evident that Baptism in the early Church was by immersion.”
DOES the account in Numbers 19 where they splattered the water with the dust upon the tents, have any mention of baptism?
David! I find that very interesting what the Catholic Encyclopedia said about Baptism. Yet they still do it the same way by just handful of water over an Infant. I called our former Catholic Church were we belonged and I asked how the do it today, and it is still the same way. Unless the Parents ask to be submerged. Generall they do it the old way.
Thank you for your post.
Peace and Love IreneQuote (david @ Sep. 04 2009,02:14) Quote All I did was ask you how you know John submerged Jesus seeing that you were not there and that the scriptures do not say that Jesus was submerged. 1. The word baptism literally means “immerse.”
2. Mark 1:9, 10: “Jesus . . . was baptized [“immersed,” ED, Ro] in the Jordan [River] by John. And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.”
3. John selected a location in the Jordan Valley near Salim to baptize, “because there was a great quantity of water there.” (Joh 3:23)
Nope! The Greek “baptidzo” simply means “to wash.” Coming up out of the water does not infer there was a submersion. If I am in a swimming pool only waste high I must come up to exit the water. The scripture does not say that Jesus went down UNDER the water. It does not say that He came up from UNDER the water. It simply says that He went down INTO the water and came up OUT OF the water.Again, I must go down to get into water and come up to exit water. The law of Moses required baptisn by sprinkling with a hyssop branch (Numbers 19:17-18).
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 04 2009,02:49) Quote (david @ Sep. 04 2009,02:14) Quote All I did was ask you how you know John submerged Jesus seeing that you were not there and that the scriptures do not say that Jesus was submerged. 1. The word baptism literally means “immerse.”
2. Mark 1:9, 10: “Jesus . . . was baptized [“immersed,” ED, Ro] in the Jordan [River] by John. And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.”
3. John selected a location in the Jordan Valley near Salim to baptize, “because there was a great quantity of water there.” (Joh 3:23)
Nope! The Greek “baptidzo” simply means “to wash.” Coming up out of the water does not infer there was a submersion. If I am in a swimming pool only waste high I must come up to exit the water. The scripture does not say that Jesus went down UNDER the water. It does not say that He came up from UNDER the water. It simply says that He went down INTO the water and came up OUT OF the water.Again, I must go down to get into water and come up to exit water. The law of Moses required baptisn by sprinkling with a hyssop branch (Numbers 19:17-18).
thinker
thinker that is not done today though. So why debate about it. Yes, that was the Old Covenant. Now we are in the New. And you know it simple does not make sense to go into a river and then take just a handful of water and pure it over the person. Also the Catholic Church baptizes Infants that know nothing. Such practice is only there to make sure you stay in that Church, IMO. Since the Church changed from Latin into English in America and German in Germany etc. many when they read the Bible for the first time, leave that Church. The one abomination is that they worship Mary and pray to Her. It is like this:” Hail Maria full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among woman and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Hail Maria pray for us now and at the hour of our death. Amen. That is said after each Our Father. They also believe that she stayed a Virgin. Not to talk about the Mass. It is a sacrifice for all sins. Like we need another one, Jesus sacrifice is not good enough for them. So sad.
Peace and Love IreneQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 04 2009,02:18) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,00:30) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 03 2009,07:55) Quote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,15:32) Quote I was the founding pastor for two different congregations. Finally. I knew it.
The average Catholic would have left after the first minute, after someone started using the Bible.:D
Seriously, you are nowhere near the average Catholic. The average Catholic, or the average person who claims to be Catholic does not really care too much about these things. They go to church, or maybe they only go on Christmas and Easter. But that's it.
Hi DavidIf I am not mistaken the Catholics are not allowed to discuss scriptures for there is “no private interpretation” and only the “infallable Pope” or Priest can exegete scripture properly!
WJ
But alas you are mistaken.Why do I get the feeling that you are reveling in you utter ignorance of the Catholic church? Let me guess, you are a mainline denominational Protestant?
Let me give you an example of our exegesis of Scripture. This is from Haydock's Bible Commentary on 2 Pet. 1:20,21:
Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) — The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ver. 21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)
Hi CAQuote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,00:30) The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ahh, so the Spirit of truth is limited to the Catholic Church?Yes, you are right, I am a Protestant, and this is one of the reasons why!
WJ
This statement you quoted says that the Holy Spirit is resident in the Catholic church. He IS!This is exactly what Jesus promised. This is why He has led us into all truth.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,13:12) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 04 2009,02:18) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,00:30) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 03 2009,07:55) Quote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,15:32) Quote I was the founding pastor for two different congregations. Finally. I knew it.
The average Catholic would have left after the first minute, after someone started using the Bible.:D
Seriously, you are nowhere near the average Catholic. The average Catholic, or the average person who claims to be Catholic does not really care too much about these things. They go to church, or maybe they only go on Christmas and Easter. But that's it.
Hi DavidIf I am not mistaken the Catholics are not allowed to discuss scriptures for there is “no private interpretation” and only the “infallable Pope” or Priest can exegete scripture properly!
WJ
But alas you are mistaken.Why do I get the feeling that you are reveling in you utter ignorance of the Catholic church? Let me guess, you are a mainline denominational Protestant?
Let me give you an example of our exegesis of Scripture. This is from Haydock's Bible Commentary on 2 Pet. 1:20,21:
Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) — The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ver. 21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)
Hi CAQuote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,00:30) The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ahh, so the Spirit of truth is limited to the Catholic Church?Yes, you are right, I am a Protestant, and this is one of the reasons why!
WJ
This statement you quoted says that the Holy Spirit is resident in the Catholic church. He IS!This is exactly what Jesus promised. This is why He has led us into all truth.
Hi CAWhere did Jesus promise that in the “Catholic church” is the only place for the Spirit, or in any organized church for that matter?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 04 2009,05:49) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,13:12) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 04 2009,02:18) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,00:30) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 03 2009,07:55) Quote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,15:32) Quote I was the founding pastor for two different congregations. Finally. I knew it.
The average Catholic would have left after the first minute, after someone started using the Bible.:D
Seriously, you are nowhere near the average Catholic. The average Catholic, or the average person who claims to be Catholic does not really care too much about these things. They go to church, or maybe they only go on Christmas and Easter. But that's it.
Hi DavidIf I am not mistaken the Catholics are not allowed to discuss scriptures for there is “no private interpretation” and only the “infallable Pope” or Priest can exegete scripture properly!
WJ
But alas you are mistaken.Why do I get the feeling that you are reveling in you utter ignorance of the Catholic church? Let me guess, you are a mainline denominational Protestant?
Let me give you an example of our exegesis of Scripture. This is from Haydock's Bible Commentary on 2 Pet. 1:20,21:
Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) — The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ver. 21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)
Hi CAQuote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,00:30) The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ahh, so the Spirit of truth is limited to the Catholic Church?Yes, you are right, I am a Protestant, and this is one of the reasons why!
WJ
This statement you quoted says that the Holy Spirit is resident in the Catholic church. He IS!This is exactly what Jesus promised. This is why He has led us into all truth.
Hi CAWhere did Jesus promise that in the “Catholic church” is the only place for the Spirit, or in any organized church for that matter?
There is ONLY ONE Church.Did you want to ask that again? Or are we clear?
Quote (Cindy @ Sep. 04 2009,04:23) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 04 2009,02:49) Quote (david @ Sep. 04 2009,02:14) Quote All I did was ask you how you know John submerged Jesus seeing that you were not there and that the scriptures do not say that Jesus was submerged. 1. The word baptism literally means “immerse.”
2. Mark 1:9, 10: “Jesus . . . was baptized [“immersed,” ED, Ro] in the Jordan [River] by John. And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.”
3. John selected a location in the Jordan Valley near Salim to baptize, “because there was a great quantity of water there.” (Joh 3:23)
Nope! The Greek “baptidzo” simply means “to wash.” Coming up out of the water does not infer there was a submersion. If I am in a swimming pool only waste high I must come up to exit the water. The scripture does not say that Jesus went down UNDER the water. It does not say that He came up from UNDER the water. It simply says that He went down INTO the water and came up OUT OF the water.Again, I must go down to get into water and come up to exit water. The law of Moses required baptisn by sprinkling with a hyssop branch (Numbers 19:17-18).
thinker
thinker that is not done today though. So why debate about it. Yes, that was the Old Covenant. Now we are in the New. And you know it simple does not make sense to go into a river and then take just a handful of water and pure it over the person. Also the Catholic Church baptizes Infants that know nothing. Such practice is only there to make sure you stay in that Church, IMO. Since the Church changed from Latin into English in America and German in Germany etc. many when they read the Bible for the first time, leave that Church. The one abomination is that they worship Mary and pray to Her. It is like this:” Hail Maria full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among woman and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Hail Maria pray for us now and at the hour of our death. Amen. That is said after each Our Father. They also believe that she stayed a Virgin. Not to talk about the Mass. It is a sacrifice for all sins. Like we need another one, Jesus sacrifice is not good enough for them. So sad.
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
First, I deny baptism should be practiced today (Hebrews 6:1-3). The early church was still under the old covenant. This is why Jesus commanded them to be baptized. Since the new covenant came in AD70 all baptism came to an end. All worship is according to the spirit now. All external regulations have been abolished.Second, history shows that they preferred a river of running water inwhich to baptize.
Third, Cornelius baptized Paul within the walls of his house. Did Cornelius have a “baptismal” in his house to dunk Paul? Most likely not.
Fourth, Jesus said that not one jot or tittle from the law would pass until all was fulfilled. Therefore, Moses' command to sprinkle was in effect when Jesus was baptized. He was baptized BEFORE the new covenant came. Therefore, Jesus was sprinkled.
Fifth, the Greek word “huper” (under) is never used in reference to people being baptized. There is no scripture that says that people went down under the water. It simply says that they went down into the water. When you step into a swimming pool you go down into the water. You may be in the water for any length of time without being submerged. When you are finished you come up out of the water.
I argue with you about it because you think you know that Jesus was submerged.
thinker
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,13:57) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 04 2009,05:49) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,13:12) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 04 2009,02:18) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,00:30) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 03 2009,07:55) Quote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,15:32) Quote I was the founding pastor for two different congregations. Finally. I knew it.
The average Catholic would have left after the first minute, after someone started using the Bible.:D
Seriously, you are nowhere near the average Catholic. The average Catholic, or the average person who claims to be Catholic does not really care too much about these things. They go to church, or maybe they only go on Christmas and Easter. But that's it.
Hi DavidIf I am not mistaken the Catholics are not allowed to discuss scriptures for there is “no private interpretation” and only the “infallable Pope” or Priest can exegete scripture properly!
WJ
But alas you are mistaken.Why do I get the feeling that you are reveling in you utter ignorance of the Catholic church? Let me guess, you are a mainline denominational Protestant?
Let me give you an example of our exegesis of Scripture. This is from Haydock's Bible Commentary on 2 Pet. 1:20,21:
Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) — The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ver. 21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)
Hi CAQuote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,00:30) The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ahh, so the Spirit of truth is limited to the Catholic Church?Yes, you are right, I am a Protestant, and this is one of the reasons why!
WJ
This statement you quoted says that the Holy Spirit is resident in the Catholic church. He IS!This is exactly what Jesus promised. This is why He has led us into all truth.
Hi CAWhere did Jesus promise that in the “Catholic church” is the only place for the Spirit, or in any organized church for that matter?
There is ONLY ONE Church.Did you want to ask that again? Or are we clear?
Hi CAYea, you mean like the WWOC, and the JWs claim that they are the only church?
You didn't answer the question!
If the Catholic Church is the “Only Church”, where did Jesus say that the Holy Spirit is limited to the Church?
OK, can you show us proof that the “Catholic Church” is the “Only Church”? Where is the “Unambiguous” proof historically and Biblically that these facts can be found?
I am waiting!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 04 2009,06:01) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,13:57) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 04 2009,05:49) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,13:12) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 04 2009,02:18) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,00:30) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 03 2009,07:55) Quote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,15:32) Quote I was the founding pastor for two different congregations. Finally. I knew it.
The average Catholic would have left after the first minute, after someone started using the Bible.:D
Seriously, you are nowhere near the average Catholic. The average Catholic, or the average person who claims to be Catholic does not really care too much about these things. They go to church, or maybe they only go on Christmas and Easter. But that's it.
Hi DavidIf I am not mistaken the Catholics are not allowed to discuss scriptures for there is “no private interpretation” and only the “infallable Pope” or Priest can exegete scripture properly!
WJ
But alas you are mistaken.Why do I get the feeling that you are reveling in you utter ignorance of the Catholic church? Let me guess, you are a mainline denominational Protestant?
Let me give you an example of our exegesis of Scripture. This is from Haydock's Bible Commentary on 2 Pet. 1:20,21:
Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) — The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ver. 21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)
Hi CAQuote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,00:30) The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ahh, so the Spirit of truth is limited to the Catholic Church?Yes, you are right, I am a Protestant, and this is one of the reasons why!
WJ
This statement you quoted says that the Holy Spirit is resident in the Catholic church. He IS!This is exactly what Jesus promised. This is why He has led us into all truth.
Hi CAWhere did Jesus promise that in the “Catholic church” is the only place for the Spirit, or in any organized church for that matter?
There is ONLY ONE Church.Did you want to ask that again? Or are we clear?
Hi CAYea, you mean like the WWOC, and the JWs claim that they are the only chuch?
You didn't answer the question!
If the Catholic Church is the “Only Church”, where did Jesus say that the Holy Spirit is limited to the Church?
OK, can you show us proof that the “Catholic Church” is the “Only Church”? Where is the “Unambiguous” proof historically and Biblically that these facts can be found?
I am waiting!
WJ
I'll let St. Francis de Sales answer your question since it echoes back to the days of the Protestant Revolt. BTW, he is a doctor of the church so I think he's qualified to answer:THE LACK OF MISSION IN THE MINISTERS OF THE NEW PRETENDED CHURCH LEAVES BOTH THEM AND THEIR FOLLOWERS WITHOUT EXCUSE.
FIRST, then, your ministers had not the conditions required for the position which they sought to maintain, and the enterprise which they undertook.
Wherefore they are inexcusable; and you yourselves also, who knew and still know or ought to know, this defect in them, have done very wrong in receiving them under such colours. The office they claimed was that of ambassadors of Jesus Christ Our Lord; the affair they undertook was to declare a formal divorce between Our Lord and the ancient Church His Spouse; to arrange and conclude by words of present consent, as lawful procurators, a second and new marriage with this young madam, of better grace, said they, and more seemly than the other. For in effect, to stand up as preacher of God's Word and pastor of souls,—-what is it but to call oneself ambassador and legate of Our Lord, according to that of the Apostle [2 Cor. v. 20]: We are therefore ambassadors for Christ? And to say that the whole of Christendom has failed, that the whole Church has erred, and all truth disappeared—-what is this but to say that Our Lord has abandoned His Church, has broken the sacred tie of marriage He had contracted with her? And to put forward a new Church,—-is it not to attempt to thrust upon this sacred and holy Husband a second wife? This is what the ministers of the pretended church have undertaken; this is what they boast of having done; this has been the aim of their discourses, their designs, their writings. But what an injustice have you not committed in believing them? How did you come to take their word so simply? How did you so lightly give them credit?To be legates and ambassadors they should ha
ve been sent, they should have had letters of credit from Him Whom they boasted of being sent by. The affairs were of the greatest importance, for there was question of disturbing the whole Church. The persons who undertook them were extraordinaries, of mean quality, and private persons; while the ordinary pastors were men of mark, and of most ancient and acknowledged reputation, who contradicted them and protested that these extraordinaries had no charge nor commandment of the Master. Tell me, what business had you to hear them and believe them without having any assurance of their commission and of the approval of Our Lord, Whose legates they called themselves? In a word, you have no justification for having quitted that ancient Church in which you were Baptized, on the faith of preachers who had no legitimate mission from the Master.Now you cannot be ignorant that they neither had, nor have, in any way at all, this mission. For if Our Lord had sent them, it would have been either mediately or immediately. We say mission is given mediately when we are sent by one who has from God the power of sending, according to the order which He has appointed in His Church; and such was the mission of S. Denis into France by Clement and of Timothy by S. Paul. Immediate mission is when God Himself commands and gives a charge, without the interposition of the ordinary authority which He has placed in the prelates and pastors of the Church: as S. Peter and the Apostles were sent, receiving from Our Lord's Own mouth this commandment: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; [Mark xvi. 15] and as Moses received his mission to Pharao and to the people of Israel. But neither in the one nor in the other way have your ministers any mission. How then have they undertaken to preach? How shall they preach, says the Apostle, unless they be sent? [Rom. x. 15]
You can read the rest here…just click through the arrows at the bottom:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/controversy1-1.htm
Hi CA,
Doctors of your church are carnal men misaligned with the truth of Scripture.
Why do you pay more heed to them than the Lord of all?Hi CA
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,14:29) How then have they undertaken to preach? How shall they preach, says the Apostle, unless they be sent? [Rom. x. 15]
You still haven't answered the question but only provided a question.How do I know that this man is sent?
Where is the evidence that Jesus said the Holy Spirit was limited to coming through the Catholic Church?
All you give me is an appologetic discourse of a man who claims to be authoritative.
Does he have signs and wonders following his preaching?
Please CA, don't tell me that your faith is based only on the appologetics of a man and not based on the Holy Scriptures!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 04 2009,07:32) Hi CA Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,14:29) How then have they undertaken to preach? How shall they preach, says the Apostle, unless they be sent? [Rom. x. 15]
You still haven't answered the question but only provided a question.How do I know that this man is sent?
Where is the evidence that Jesus said the Holy Spirit was limited to coming through the Catholic Church?
All you give me is an appologetic discourse of a man who claims to be authoritative.
Does he have signs and wonders following his preaching?
Please CA, don't tell me that your faith is based only on the appologetics of a man and not based on the Holy Scriptures!
WJ
Well, you opened up a very large question. I want to make sure we are both speaking within the same context. This is the reason why I don't jump to answer every little question David asks me. His understanding of God, the Bible, etc. are very different from mine (and that of historic Christianity). It is important to take things slow and ponder.Theology is a Divine science. It is not to be taken lightly.
How do you know this man is sent? Well, read the book, he explains himself. But if you must have a short answer, he serve in the line of apostolic succession within the Church and finished a good race.
Did he have signs and wonders follow his preaching? Go read the story of his life.
Of course my faith is not based upon the apologetics of one man. You know it's not. Stop being so cheap.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,17:14) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 04 2009,07:32) Hi CA Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 03 2009,14:29) How then have they undertaken to preach? How shall they preach, says the Apostle, unless they be sent? [Rom. x. 15]
You still haven't answered the question but only provided a question.How do I know that this man is sent?
Where is the evidence that Jesus said the Holy Spirit was limited to coming through the Catholic Church?
All you give me is an appologetic discourse of a man who claims to be authoritative.
Does he have signs and wonders following his preaching?
Please CA, don't tell me that your faith is based only on the appologetics of a man and not based on the Holy Scriptures!
WJ
Well, you opened up a very large question. I want to make sure we are both speaking within the same context. This is the reason why I don't jump to answer every little question David asks me. His understanding of God, the Bible, etc. are very different from mine (and that of historic Christianity). It is important to take things slow and ponder.Theology is a Divine science. It is not to be taken lightly.
How do you know this man is sent? Well, read the book, he explains himself. But if you must have a short answer, he serve in the line of apostolic succession within the Church and finished a good race.
Did he have signs and wonders follow his preaching? Go read the story of his life.
Of course my faith is not based upon the apologetics of one man. You know it's not. Stop being so cheap.
CAIt seems that you do not know how to answer a question?
I am beginnig to think that you do not have an answer!
BTW, I never said your faith is based on “One Man”?
You use the word “Succession”, well I do not see that principle in the scriptures. If what you are saying is true, that
Peter was the first “Pope” and then right down to the current day, we have his successors in the RCC, then where does the Apostle Paul fit?
He is 2/3 of your NT Bible is he not? He says he comes behind no Apostle, did he not?
Why havn't you answered these things? Are you here just to promote the “Catholic religion”?
WJ
Quote You use the word “Succession”, well I do not see that principle in the scriptures. If what you are saying is true, that Peter was the first “Pope” and then right down to the current day, we have his successors in the RCC, then where does the Apostle Paul fit?
He is 2/3 of your NT Bible is he not? He says he comes behind no Apostle, did he not?
Why havn't you answered these things? Are you here just to promote the “Catholic religion”?
WJ
First of all, Sola Scriptura is a self refuting proposition. But we do concede that all doctrines can at the very least be deduced by Scripture.
The one you are referring to (apostolic succession) can clearly be seen in the first chapter of Acts when Peter, as chief apostle, oversaw the choosing and ordination of the first successor to the apostles.
We can also see in Sacred Scripture where St. Paul layed his hands on Timothy and conferred the holy orders of apostolic succession.
In 2 Timothy 1:6 Paul states, “Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands.” Timothy's ordination was received through the laying on of Paul's hands, and Paul had the powers of a bishop as part of his powers as an apostle. Thus someone of episcopal rank ordained Timothy. We see this earlier in 1 Timothy 4:14 This means that presbyters (priests) laid their hands on Timothy, it was the same situation as modern priests laying their hands on a candidate after the bishop actually confers the sacrament.
Christ conferred upon his apostles the original task of shepherding the earthly Church in his absence. As the Church grew, the apostles themselves appointed different kinds of ministers to assist them.
Among the apostles there were two groups. The first consisted of the Twelve, who witnessed the whole of Christ's earthly ministry from his baptism to his Ascension (Acts 1:21-26). The second group of apostles, including Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14), was not bound by this condition. Thus Paul had seen and been commissioned as an apostle by the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:1), though he had not been a disciple of Jesus during his earthly ministry (Acts 9, 1 Cor. 15:8).
Christ could have continued to appear to individuals and appoint them as apostles throughout the Church age. However, he chose not to do so, and so the apostles passed from the scene.
The fact that this group has not continued is a Christian teaching, though not found in the New Testament, that is universally honored among Christians, including Protestants (except for certain radical Pentecostals). Thus it can be used as a counterexample with those advocating sola scriptura.
As the apostles died, the task of shepherding the Church fell by default upon the highest-ranking ministers appointed by them. This group is known today as the bishops, who are the successors of the apostles as the highest shepherds of the earthly Church.
Due to bishops' role as the successors of the apostles, possession of a valid episcopacy is necessary for a church to claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession thus involves in the bishops serving as successors to the apostles, not serving as apostles. The bishops are not simply a continuation of the office of apostle; they received the governance of the Church when that office ceased.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 04 2009,10:50) Christ conferred upon his apostles the original task of shepherding the earthly Church in his absence. As the Church grew, the apostles themselves appointed different kinds of ministers to assist them. Among the apostles there were two groups. The first consisted of the Twelve, who witnessed the whole of Christ's earthly ministry from his baptism to his Ascension (Acts 1:21-26). The second group of apostles, including Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14), was not bound by this condition. Thus Paul had seen and been commissioned as an apostle by the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:1), though he had not been a disciple of Jesus during his earthly ministry (Acts 9, 1 Cor. 15:8).
Christ could have continued to appear to individuals and appoint them as apostles throughout the Church age. However, he chose not to do so, and so the apostles passed from the scene.
The fact that this group has not continued is a Christian teaching, though not found in the New Testament, that is universally honored among Christians, including Protestants (except for certain radical Pentecostals). Thus it can be used as a counterexample with those advocating sola scriptura.
As the apostles died, the task of shepherding the Church fell by default upon the highest-ranking ministers appointed by them. This group is known today as the bishops, who are the successors of the apostles as the highest shepherds of the earthly Church.
Due to bishops' role as the successors of the apostles, possession of a valid episcopacy is necessary for a church to claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession thus involves in the bishops serving as successors to the apostles, not serving as apostles. The bishops are not simply a continuation of the office of apostle; they received the governance of the Church when that office ceased.
CA,
There is one big problemo with your view. The transference of apostloic authority came with the laying on of hands which was itself coming to an end in the apostle's own time,Quote Therefore, leaving the doctrine of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits. (Hebrews 6:1-3) So we see that by the time Hebrews was written the laying on of hands was already being phased out. It belonged to the “elementary principles” of Christ and was to be abandoned. By implication apostolic succession was coming to an end. In the new covenant age all men and women stand on the same ground.
Apostolic succession was only temporary. It's usefulnesss has past. There should be no laying of hands or ordinations today. All know the Lord from the least to the greatest and do not need an “ordained” priest to teach them (Hebrews 8:10-12). This is because in the new covenant age all God's people have His law written on their minds and in their hearts.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 04 2009,11:17) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 04 2009,10:50) Christ conferred upon his apostles the original task of shepherding the earthly Church in his absence. As the Church grew, the apostles themselves appointed different kinds of ministers to assist them. Among the apostles there were two groups. The first consisted of the Twelve, who witnessed the whole of Christ's earthly ministry from his baptism to his Ascension (Acts 1:21-26). The second group of apostles, including Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14), was not bound by this condition. Thus Paul had seen and been commissioned as an apostle by the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:1), though he had not been a disciple of Jesus during his earthly ministry (Acts 9, 1 Cor. 15:8).
Christ could have continued to appear to individuals and appoint them as apostles throughout the Church age. However, he chose not to do so, and so the apostles passed from the scene.
The fact that this group has not continued is a Christian teaching, though not found in the New Testament, that is universally honored among Christians, including Protestants (except for certain radical Pentecostals). Thus it can be used as a counterexample with those advocating sola scriptura.
As the apostles died, the task of shepherding the Church fell by default upon the highest-ranking ministers appointed by them. This group is known today as the bishops, who are the successors of the apostles as the highest shepherds of the earthly Church.
Due to bishops' role as the successors of the apostles, possession of a valid episcopacy is necessary for a church to claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession thus involves in the bishops serving as successors to the apostles, not serving as apostles. The bishops are not simply a continuation of the office of apostle; they received the governance of the Church when that office ceased.
CA,
There is one big problemo with your view. The transference of apostloic authority came with the laying on of hands which was itself coming to an end in the apostle's own time,Quote Therefore, leaving the doctrine of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits. (Hebrews 6:1-3) So we see that by the time Hebrews was written the laying on of hands was already being phased out. It belonged to the “elementary principles” of Christ and was to be abandoned. By implication apostolic succession was coming to an end. In the new covenant age all men and women stand on the same ground.
Apostolic succession was only temporary. It's usefulnesss has past. There should be no laying of hands or ordinations today. All know the Lord from the least to the greatest and do not need an “ordained” priest to teach them (Hebrews 8:10-12). This is because in the new covenant age all God's people have His law written on their minds and in their hearts.
thinker
Ridiculous!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
