Posted on 10/19/2013 8:50:26 PM PDT by jodyel
Wow!
Not only logical; but TRUE!
Too bad this example of clear thinking hasn't extended further.
"WE" do?
HMMMmmm...
It must be one of those LOGICAL things again.
Kinda like circumcision is a 'sign' of being one of God's chosen - Genesis 17:11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.
Yet by the time Acts 15 appears; the OFFICIAL teaching was that it was a REQUIREMENT - or ELSE!
Well, since no one really KNOWS what was actually IN the library, anything said about the contents would be, logically, mere speculation.
I reject your claim that your precious church is CHRIST!
Arrogant and Boastful ones!
This HERETIC seemed to be a bit, shall we say, dismissing about the TRUE value of baptism:
1 Corinthians 1:15-17
...so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.
(Poor fool; didn't seem to know whether it was a SIGN or a REQUIREMENT.)
Acts 15:1
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
And now, today...
Certain people ccome down from Rome to FreeRepublic and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are BAPTISED correctly, according to the custom taught by the Fathers, you cannot be saved.”
The purpose for Jesus' baptism is stated right in Scripture by John. It was so that John would recognize Jesus and He would be revealed to the world.
John 1:29-34 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. ”
bttt
Could anyone imagine Paul or Peter saying such things as Montfort did?
I wouldn’t have thought ANYONE would have said stuff like that.
And Catholics swallow it, hook, line, and sinker......
Of course not. There was no codex, only individual components of the canon of books, which the Holy Ghost was able to preserve as enumerated through the early discussions. And which we still have, through the copies made of the valid ones as the originals wore our and were carefully replaced. Without a doubt, Jerome had his place in making a Latin translation from the original languages, but at circa 400 AD, we have no assurance that he had "better" copies than we do now. In fact, they cannot be "better"--they can only be the same as we have. There is no "better."
And we have access now to some 5,000+ full or partial fragments, of which the oldest must be discounted not that they are "better" because they are old, but actually poorer because they survived only because they were infrequently accessed, and only because they were curiosities--not useful for study as reliable documents. And please, don't pester me with either "lower" or "higher" criticism. Let me stop that right here. If any one, it is Erasmus that showed good judgment, in that he did preserve and retranslate back to the Koine the segment Known as "The Johannine Comma," as well as the segment you mention, also in the writings of John.
Erasmus was furious about abuses of the Roman church system, through his understanding of the Koine; but he failed to place the church as necessarily subservient to Scripture as the sole standard for doctrine, as did Luther. And as do I, firmly and finally--and correctly.
The Church, however, the pillar and ground of truth, is doing just fine, by Divine design.
So you believe, and in a false interpretation of the Scripture you misuse; for if the Scripture were not preeminent, the church would be whatever you wanted it to be (as you are mistakenly defining the church's role); rather than the supporting structure for maintaining the superiority of the Word of The God, Who holds it to be even above His Name:
Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
In my estimate, the RCC is not doing fine, in that it sets itself above instruction by the Word of The Very Head of the Scriptural church, the Word Enfleshed, the Only Begotten-in-the-flesh Son of The God, The Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Scriptures the boundary of spiritual knowledge exclusive of tradition beyond the original eleven Apostles and Paul contained in its pages.
The psalmist said (as do I) speaking by the Holy Ghost:
Psa 130:5 I wait for the LORD, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.
It doesn't say here that my hope is in a church, especially one that explicitly sets itself above His Word and clearly does not obey it in every respect, that does not accept that He has preserved it for use by every independent, autonomous, meek, obedient assembly on earth, as well as the invisible (to us now) paneguria (conference) and First-born's Ekklesia (convening body), whose names are written in Heaven:
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
For, about preservation, not just of His Word, but of His words by Jehovah as well as His manifestation as Jesus, even the spelling and punctuation He affirmed, both in Koine as well as Hebrew:
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot (jodh,Hebrew's smallest consonant; iota, transliterated in Greek) or one tittle (keraia--the period--in Greek, chireq in Hebrew, a dot, smallest vowel or vowel pointing) shall in no wise pass from the law (Hebrew/Aramaic in OT, Koine in NT) till all be fulfilled.
THE Bible interprets itself, and neither the RCC nor any other fallible human organization has authority to translate or interpret it beyond a literal, grammatical, historical, and cultural hermeneutic, nor to apply it in a mode foreign to the obvious intent of its Maker.
The christ and gospel of the RCC do not agree with the plain intent of the preserved and correctly interpreted Bibles I have. There is no earthly-ruled assembly of Christians than the local independent, autonomous, immersionist assembly maintaining the Gospel through obedience to Christ's ordinances, strong preaching of Christ and Him crucufued, and church discipline, in my Bible. There are no longer any supernumeraries ruling over churches other than their own local one. Uniform understanding of the Bible by The Bible produces unity in the Spirit of correctly in-doctrine-ated members, ones taught to question any teaching by searching the Scriptures for conformation to the determined Will of The God. No global super-rule is required nor desired.
A local church may be a pillar and a support basis for God's plan, but Jesus Christ is the Lord-architect, and through His Word and the unity of the members, tells the church what to do, AFIK.
Neither logical, spiritual, nor true. By faith we have any valid Hebrew/Aramaic or Koine text through God's promise to provided them for all the ages for His people.
You are asking me to sort out your opinions for you. No time. If you have a specific question about the teachings of the Church, ask.
The second “again” whether it is supposed to be there or not, does not do anything to the meaning. The second birth is by the water and spirit and this is how everyone understood it, prior to the Protestant charlatans, according to the evidence in the Acts.
Yes, mikvot historically preceded Christian baptism and are a prefugurement of it. I argued otherwise?
I care?
No, we don't it is a possibility, though.
if the Scripture were not preeminent, the church would be whatever...
The Chruch, of course, would not contradict herself, and so she would not contradict the Holy Scripture she produced under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
If you’re going to accuse him or heresies, then don’t act surprised when he challenges you to be specific.
Your refusal to do so only indicates that you have nothing but specious accusations to throw out at someone.
The constant use of this tactic by Catholics, that is making accusations as if they are fact and then refusing to back them up, is disingenuous.
If you all are hoping that the accusations stick and you all can discredit someone without actually being challenged on it, guess again.
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.