Posted on 12/12/2006 10:51:32 PM PST by Coleus
Oh? What is water in that context?
Then why did the apostles go baptising whol houses?
"That's the difference, you alone are not a church. Further you weren't present at the church under the Apostles."
No, but I am in integral part of the church as are all tthe members of the GRPL/Neener magisterium. We were not bodily present at the churches started by the apostles but we were present in spirit since we were chosen as part of the elect before the foundation of the world and have carried on the traditions instituted by the apostles since then.
i have no idea what a neener is but you're professions make it clear that you have no traditions in common with the apostles.
Brother, here is where you will hear the "crickets chirping" or a deflection to another subject.
We both know the canon is not present in Scripture anywhere. The assumption seems to be that it fell from the sky fully formed (absent Maccabees and a few other books, of course). And then, we are told we are "anti-Scriptural." Neat argument, huh??
And you also my Christian FRiend!
indeed it seems the protestants on this thread have devolved into slandering the early church which gave them their Holy Scripture (born out of the Holy Tradition of the church)
It is fascinating to me in listening to "The Journey Home" programs how many Protestants "find" Patristics, the Church Fathers, and attribute that much to their journey home. Many also admit that the biggest problem they have is with Marian Doctrines and those are often the last to be accepted. That is why these threads seem to cause such an outpouring of interest as opposed to those on salvation, for example.
The only leg left for the theory of Apostolic Succession is the ordination process, with the laying on of hands. However, it seems that if the Apostles did not directly appoint the next generation of Bishops than the laying on of hands being valid is not dependent upon them, but rather the individuals laying on hands being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
If this is correct, than any Christian body of believers has a valid ordination process as long as those laying on hands are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
All that the laying on of hands did was recognize that the candidate was called by God to the office or mission. It conferred nothing. The Clement letter (ca. 85-90 A.D.) and Didache set out the "tradition", however Acts 13:3 gives us the scripture.
You've done a great job covering this ground, with the historical development of the Canon. I think the one element that gets forgotten is that Rome did not officially recognize the Canon until after the fact. Thus, the "editor's argument" would not even apply if it were applicable.
I remember it was right after that secret meeting we held where we decided we were the only ones with the power to interpret Scripture.
"i have no idea what a neener is but you're professions make it clear that you have no traditions in common with the apostles."
Neeners are a synthesis drawn from the antagonisism between the Reformed and the Arminian camps. We like to think we have taken the worst of both camps, the negatives, and since two negatives make a positive, we are very positive that all of our traditions are handed down directly from the apostles. Now some of them have come down directly to us and some have come down through springing covenants, bypassing some of the more cantankerous ecclesiastics and some have come down to us by inspiration, but we are convinced, nay, we are sure they are really, authentic, traditions. Some even have the GRPL/Neener seal of approval which is the highest standard available. The two chancellors of the GRPL/Neener magisteriam, Dr. E and P-M are the current keepers of the seal and can only affix it if there is a unanimous agreement that the tradition is apostolically authentic.
the qualm the apostolic churches have with the protestant attitude toward script is the same one conservatives have with regard to liberals reinterpreting of the constitution.
protestants reinvent scripture from poor biased translations deliberatly twisiting the meaning to liberalize the truth and tolerate their deviations from Christ commandments.
Not one protestant confession has come out of the ranks of Aramaic or Koine Greek speaking peoples. All have come from folks who speak none of the classical languages, and have tried to learn them themselves in secret, and then go about translating the bible with preconseived notions of what they want it to say.
In short protestants not only divine themselves the sole true interpretors of scripture they do it on a personal level (emphasising self over God), thus adding to any perceived arrogance they feel Rome may have had, they go so far as to aledge that 1600 years of Christians were mistaken and only they are correct.
That said your secret meetings and self obsessed lofty declararations seem par for the protestantism course.
bookmark
Let's say that 1000's of people throughout the world are praying to Saint Y.
How does Saint Y know of all those petitions?
Firstly you should state this properly, since you've already stated you're prone to becoming confused with ambiguous verbiology.
"Let's say that 100s of people throughout the world are asking Saint Y to intercede on their behalf. How does Saint Y know of all these petition".
We know from the Bible that the Saints are in heaven and Praying, and that their Prayers can intercede on our behalf. It's plain in the Book of Revelation as well (though you mentioned you don't find the Book of Revelation to be authentic).
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.