Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by NYer
rl
SD>Then you are willfully ignoring the very words spoken by Christ and documented in the New Testament. If that's where you want to make your stand, have at it.
SD
613 posted on 02/16/2006 9:58:42 AM MST by SoothingDave
I stand by my recommendation not to build dogma on the Aramaic. The very fact that the Ruach haKodesh chose to indicate some words that
b'shem Y'shua
Y'shua spoke were in Aramaic should not blind you to the fact that the
Ruach haKodesh purposefully breathed the Gospels and Epistles in Koine Greek
for our understanding.
Your observation would be valid in merely human terms. But the issue takes on a different level of understanding of "trust" in God's Providence here, insofar as it treats to matters of "faith." As someone who has rejected Christianity outright, I would imagine that this specific issue of magisterial authority makes no difference to you. Yet you have similar issues regarding "authority" in your own cirlcle. The Old Testament in general, and the Torah in particular, have meaning for you, I would expect. But they do not for Hindus, Shintos, Buddhists, and a host of others. You would have to establish credibility for your Scriptures with such people in the same way a Catholic needs to establish the authority of Sacred Tradition, Ecumenical Councils, the Papacy and the like with non-Catholic Christians.
Catholics consider the sources above to come down to us with Divine sponsorship and ratification. We do not suppose that each individual priest is so endowed. So, like you vis-a-vis rabbinical pronouncements, I don't necessarily agree with every pronouncement issuing from the mouth of every individual priest talking out of his hat, either.
I would equate Catholic traditions such as Peter in Rome, Perpetual Virginity, Immortality of Souls, etc., etc., to Judaism's Jewish "Midrash". Midrash being traditions that embellish Torah and Tanakh. These traditions, some and maybe most might be true, are not binding. The difference it seems is that "all" Catholic tradition has to be accepted to maintain being a Catholic.
Please read over my banter with tenn2005. The whole NT points to a day of judgement where all the books will be opened and justice will be known to all.
Again, it helps to understand the lingo. A proper baptism is one done with water and the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." That's it.
Any baptised Christian can baptise someone validly.
SD
Mark the calendars. We are in agreement. :-)
SD
Please provide a citation from Scripture stating justification by faith alone.
SD
Sure it does. But that doesn't make God subject to time. Contemplate eternity. Asking whether we go straight to Heaven or only after some time and events take place is to totally not think about eternity.
If our destination is Heaven, we are already there. From eternity we will be able to view our present.
SD
Yes, I am sure. The normal minister for administering Baptism is a priest. But in an emergency, any baptised person can do so. If your wife gives birth to a dying baby, or if you are on a ship sinking into the sea, you can baptise an unbaptised person.
Yes, it's a sacrament and different sacraments have different ministers. In marriage, it is the spouses who administer the sacrament to each other. The priest is a witness.
SD
Q. 633. Who can administer Baptism?
A. A priest is the ordinary minister of baptism; but in case of necessity anyone who has the use of reason may baptize.
Q. 634. What do we mean by the "ordinary minister" of a Sacrament?
A. By the "ordinary minister" of a Sacrament we mean the one who usually does administer the Sacrament, and who has always the right to do so.
Q. 635. Can a person who has not himself been baptized, and who does not even believe in the Sacrament of baptism, give it validly to another in case of necessity?
A. A person who has not himself been baptized, and who does not even believe in the Sacrament of baptism, can give it validly to another in case of necessity, provided:
(1) He has the use of reason;
(2) Knows how to give baptism, and
(3) Intends to do what the Church intends in the giving of the Sacrament. Baptism is so necessary that God affords every opportunity for its reception.
I do agree with you that since God created time, he is not bound by it. However, since the time prophesies of the Bible are true and relevant, the 1000 year judgement period in revelation must be too.
After five or six years! ;-)
Well, there are differences. Small "t" tradition tends to run along the lines of customs and practices, which can and do change sometimes. Other than a certain attention due to following a custom because it has a "current status," a custom's rejection generally has little implication in one's salvation one way or another. Capital "T" tradition pertains to doctrine, and, having been so defined, is binding on the faithful.
Mark for future reading. An incredibly interesting thread.
I agree with your philosophy but not your theology. Words mean things, especially if they were written by the Holy Spirit through the prophets. If you believe in Jesus, repent, confess your sins, try to quit sinning, and get baptized, then you move from the "lost" to the "saved". That alone does not end sin nor does it destroy Satan. Only God and Jesus can do that.
Matthew
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.