Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
And neither has anything to do with salvation.
No evidence that David circumcised his infant son who died, but who he knew he would see again (2Sam.12) Of course he did. Jews believe in Shoel, or Hades, a place where all dead souls go, not just the righteous. You are interpreting Judaism of 1000 BC with Christian notions of heaven and hell. Way off the target, friend.
Yes, the infant went to Abraham's bosom (Lk 16) the same place that saved David went.
Well that is a good thing to trust in, since water Baptism is a meaningless act on a child Meaningless? Did Jesus Christ say "Baptise adults in the name of the Father...?" I would rather "err" on the side of "meaningless" in this instance and leave the rest to God.
No infant was ever baptized in the NT.
The infant is saved because of God's grace And an adult is saved because of God's grace too ! -- regardless of how smart or Bible-read he or she is, or how much (s)he believes, or how charitable (s)he is. It's always God's grace, regardless.
That's very nice, but for the adult it is through faith (Rom.10:17, Eph.2:8).
If you are depending on your infant Baptism or anything else but the shed Blood of Christ you are lost.
God is now free to impute Christ's righteousness to the infant so he is justified before God God is always free. He does not have to depend on our state of intellect to save our miserable souls, or on our "acceptance" of Him as believing adults.
Once again, God is free but He is bound by His own Holiness.
That is why He cannot save those who reject His free gift of salvation.
Through baptism, we are adopted into Christ, not intellectually but mystically. We do not "adopt" God into us. God adopts us into Him. And, that, dear friend, does not depend on us at all. :)
No one has ever been saved by water Baptism.
Baptism is identification with God, but it cannot save.
Baptized infants aren't Christians either! LOL! Christ commanded us to baptize everyone, and all people who are baptized are adopted into Christ, and are therefore Christians. Of course, if you grow up baptized but refuse God, do not repent as you continue in life, what good is your baptism going to be? It is not the intellect that makes baptism valid, but it is our faith that makes us stay baptized in Christ when we are old enough and willing to repent. Infants dont have to worry about staying in Christ once they are brought into Christ, because they cannot sin yet.
Water Baptism saves no one, infant or adult.
The Baptism that saves is a spiritual one, after one is saved and the Holy Spirit brings the believer into union with Christ (1Cor.12:13).
Water Baptism is a symbol of this fact. (2Pe.3)
Your theology holds God's grace hostage by our intellectual ability to "accept" God when we are ready. It places our intellect over God, so that He "may" be free to bestow His grace upon us. Gees, that is really an upside-down theology.
No, my theology is based on the words of God, words which God places above His own name (Ps.138:2)
The Books of Ephesians and Colossians were never disputed.
By 100AD, all 27 books of the New Testament were in circulation and all but Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 Jn, 3 Jn, Revelation were universally accepted. http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-earliest-evidence.htm
There is no transcription error, the blood is in Col.1:14 Not in most Greek sources.
Well, there are a number of correct readings that are left out in the Majority of Greek sources, like Acts 8:37, 1Jn.5:7.
Sometimes the Old Latin and other translations show the correct reading instead of the Greek.
No, without blood the verse is in error and there cannot be errors in the Bible text, if it is to be considered the Bible Well, I got news for you: try reading more than one version of the dozens and dozens of redacted and edited versions of the Bible and you would be amazed what's in them or what's not in them all!
And why would I want to read a bunch of corrupted bibles?
I've got news for you, read the King James, believe it and get saved!
Or you can just stay where you are. There is some comfort in denial. BTW, shhh, the earth is really not flat.
And your works cannot save you (Eph.2:8, Gal.2:16)
I've always believe that Elijah and Enoch would come back. There are two witnesses mentioned who would return, Elijah and Enoch never "officially" died, and for every man it is appoint to die once. Do I know what their purpose is? No, but I do not believe there will be a massive conversion of the Jews (although that would be a pleasant thought).
I'm intrigued by these statements about Elijah and will have to look into this a tad bit more. However, for the time being, I believe I'll follow the Orthodox fathers and leave eschatological speculation alone. ;O)
"What is wonderful is that the CHURCH is the one who said that the Protoevangelium is NOT Scriptures. Nor is the Gospel of Judas or any other of those garbage Gnostic writings."
______________________________________
Again you try to empower YOUR church and not THE CHURCH.
Ho,ho....Now come on. The Reformation fathers traced their views back to the early days of the church as well. I often cite Augustine as my source-not the Reformed fathers.
In addition, you can't really say that ALL your doctrinal beliefs can be traced back to the early part of the Church for the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic are at schism with each other. You left in 1000AD. Who’s to blame and why don't you agree with the RCC interpretation? Do you believe in the Nicene Creed as the Roman Catholic doctrine shows? Do you accept the Pope as your final authority? Why is there an Orthodox Church and an RCC if tradition is the same? All these are legitimate questions.
To say that the Orthodox and RCC have built their foundations upon the early traditions and the Reformers on something made up 1500 years later is simply not true.
The point is that the Temple had given the young Mary to Joseph so as to protect her virginity. (by the way, Joseph was NOT rich, if you read the Protoevangelium, Mary's FATHER was "exceedingly rich" in the very first sentence). Mary was given to Joseph by lot. So who would have had sex with Mary, but an adulterer who was exceedingly wicked, knowing the history of Mary's virginity and being brought up in the Temple, and then given to Joseph to protect.
The scriptures say that Jesus had named brothers, sisters, a named mother, and a father, all within two verses
Without a further extensive re-visitation, Hebrew does not have a word for "cousin". ONLY one person is said to be the child of Mary. The Protoevangelium calls these other children of Joseph BEFORE Mary was given to Joseph by the Temple priests. The Scripture does NOT claim that Joseph and Mary had sex...
How many young women do you suppose expected angels to appear before them announcing a coming birth? Even if Mary was intimately familiar with scriptures she would know this was not an every day occurrence. I find it absolutely incredible that she would have reacted matter-of-factly. You don't appear to accept that the passage says she was afraid. I would have been too!
I have no doubts she was afraid. But really, "how can this be" is not the answer one would give IF someone was intending on having sexual relationships soon...
If the Bible said anywhere that Mary was ever-virgin that would be fine with me
The Bible doesn't make a claim in either direction, so why argue against it? Oh, yea, because Catholics say it was so...
However, I am always interested in learning more examples of when the words of scripture are suppressed in favor of a Traditional position
Suppressed? What verse is suppressed as a result of saying Mary was ever-virgin? The explanation given are perfectly acceptable, ancient, and do not damage the Scriptures. You want something damaging to Scriptures? How about Sola Scriptura? How deep have you tried to twist that one, but yet produced nothing? Not a single bit of evidence...
Regards
You miss my point... And this is very important.
Without the CHURCH'S interpretation, a final, decisive and dogmatic declaration, we would STILL be arguing over precisely the relationship between God the Father and the Son - and WHO is the Holy Spirit. If you read about the history of the Arian heresy (one where Jesus was not of the essence of the Father), Arius uses SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATIONS to advance his point - that Christ was a creation, not one of the persons of the Godhead (Trinity is not in the Bible).
I'm sure there are plenty of cross-references that when all put together make it clear that the idea of the Trinity is absolutely Biblical.
If you would like, I can advance the Arius point of view, strictly from the Bible. Without the Church's interpretation, you would not have a basis or a standard to come up with "Trinity", now, would you? This idea of WHO is God would be ANOTHER issue that Catholics and Protesters would disagree on. Fortunately, Protestants haven't totally put aside Catholic doctrines...
The Bible talks about the Church of God, which could mean just that or it could refer to God Himself. Even if the former, we don't agree on what God's Church is.
What other Church do you think Paul was refering to? The Second Baptist Church in St. Paul, Minnesota?
"Oh, yes, well God gave all the power to the RCC to interpret scripture."
You certainly feel in a dramatic mood today, huh? The Church was given power to bind and loosen - which includes interpretating Scriptures, exactly what Jewish authorities did, as well. Are you upset that God didn't put you in charge?!
No, I think they do perfectly by themselves, but you're right that correct interpretation is the key. Some Christians have an outside agenda that needs supporting, (thus tipping the scales on interpretation), and some do not.
Naturally, those who cannot live by their own standards, such as Sola Scriptura - by inventing Sola Fide as well as Sola Scriptura - do not have an agenda!!!
Boy do you have a gloomy outlook. :) I can only surmise that you do not believe that sanctification is real (at least for Protestants), or that people actually grow in their faiths during their lives. I suppose with a hierarchy that dictates all of your beliefs to you, there might not be much room to grow.
After so much typing, you still don't know much about Catholicism, do you. Because there is authoritative power available to bind and loosen doesn't mean we don't think or grow. Sanctification is real, especially THROUGH the sacraments of the Church. It is the instrument that God has established to do just that. It is where we receive our daily bread, our forgiveness of sins from God. The correct interpretations of the teachings of the APOSTLES. I have a difficult time wondering why God established a Church that would totally destroy everthing Christ taught in less than 100 years - that is the argument of Protestantism that exceeds all other fantasies...
Regards
Faith is not man-generated, but man is not totally passive in his response to the gift of God. Does everyone have all the grace and information they need? Enough to condemn themselves or to accept the Law written on their hearts. God will judge man based on the knowledge that HE gives that man.
I do not believe man will be judged for salvation based on what he does.
I would further clarify that by noting that Scriptures have different definitions of "works". James says they ARE necessary - because he is refering to works of love, good deeds done with pure motive (of course, a gift from God). Paul talks about "works" where God now owes man a reward for obey the Law. Paul says nothing man can do makes God a debtor, thus, to Paul, this form of "work of the law" cannot save. Thus, I believe Protestants err by forcing ALL actions of man into Paul's definition of works, when the Scriptures clearly tell us that "faith [without works] cannot save".
The elect were selected before any of them were born, so what could they add or subtract from that based on anything they ever did? A Catholic is flexible on predestination and what part man has to do with this. We can take your view, the Thomist view, or we can take Molina's view that God forsees man's response. God's foresight does not mean God ordained it. Thus, God certainly can see man's response to His graces.
I believe that sometimes in the Bible, the reference to judgment is talking about rewards in heaven apart from salvation.
More often, much more, though, judgment of Christians is seen as either heaven or hell. This is the general context when deeds are mentioned in the case of judgment. For example, Revelation 20. One's love or lack thereof will determine whether one goes to heaven or hell. If the Bible even mentions such things ONCE, than Sola Fide is destroyed. On ALL occasions, our Lord makes it clear that judgment will separate the good from the evil, not the good from the better.
Regards
I agree and have amply defended free will. But at the same time, I must also defend God's predestination of people to grace. The Bible speaks of both truths - that man has free will and God expects man to respond to Him AND that God provides EVERY good grace necessary to whom He sees fit and chooses to use it. I have found, as St. Augustine had, that being in the middle of a point of view and arguing against one extreme often leads the other extreme to counter "heresy"! The Catholic Church continues to teach Predestination - both to grace and to glory - although it has NEVER taught double predestination (God actively predestining the reprobate to perdition)
When St. Augustine defended the Church vs. the Manicheaens, he used words emphasizing free will that the Pelagians would later use against him. St. Augustine then went the other extreme to defend the Catholic faith, using words and phrases that our Calvinist brothers have taken out of context!
Free will is an essential part of every human being and even for angels. It was an essential feature of Mary. And of Jesus himself as He accepted His role as Christ
I don't believe I denied that Mary had free will! I have pinged two "Calvinist" who can vouch for my belief in free will and my defense. But certainly, God can arrange things so that a person makes a free will choice. This "arrangement" can include that person's mental dispositions, his environment, and so forth. We as Catholics believe that God touches man through creation. Thus, He is certainly able to manipulate things so that the best choice would appear to be "x". The person has a free choice to make, but God, in the circumstances that He sees fit, can bring people to make the choice that God desires.
The Father is not interested in robots, it seems. We Calvinist types like to say that man's free will is not violated by God's unalterable and unfolding plan of creation. And man's free will does not diminish God's free will. It is merely that man's free will in this matter of predestination is fully enfolded in God's free will and his plan for the salvation of those He adopted as His children from the foundation of the world.
I haven't heard this argument before from Calvinists. After reading about TULIP, a Catholic can agree with some of it, although we would change the wording a bit. The first, Total Depravity, makes us cringe. But in essence, we agree with the concept, that man cannot come to God under his OWN power and requires grace from above. Where I have had problems here is pointing out man's cooperation - a gift from God, no doubt - but just the same, the Scriptures use the language of synergism.
Without full free will, neither Mary nor Jesus could be what scripture says they are.
I agree. Your explanation seems to properly balance man's free will with God's sovereign will without destroying either one.
Regards
What the Teaching Can Teach Us
by William Varner | posted 05/22/2006 09:30 a.m.Not all extracanonical manuscripts reveal a 'lost Christianity.'
The church's earliest discipleship manual—the Didache—is as orthodox and relevant as it gets.The telephone call came just after we had finished our evening meal at the Knight's Palace Hotel in the Old City of Jerusalem in May 2005. The message instructed me to come now to the library of the Greek Orthodox patriarch if I wanted to see the manuscript. I changed my clothes quickly and scurried through the labyrinthine lanes of the Old City. After entering the Greek Orthodox monastery, I made my way to the library. Soon, the librarian delivered what I had waited years to see—a 950-year-old, 200-page manuscript containing, along with a dozen other early writings, a little work only 10 pages long. Its name is the Didache (the "Teaching," pronounced "didakhay"), short for The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. While no one believes that any of the twelve apostles wrote it, scholars agree that the work is a faithful transmission of the apostles' teaching, intended primarily for the training of Gentile believers.
Why do I have such an interest in this piece of parchment, the only manuscript copy known to exist? Although scholars fiercely debate many issues about the Teaching, most agree that it was written toward the end of the first century, by an anonymous author who probably lived in the area of Syria near Antioch. The Acts of the Apostles tells us that the believers were first called Christians in Antioch. This term also appears in the Teaching.
The fact that the Didache comes from such an early period of church history should make the Teaching of interest to every believer. But, while scholars have discussed the Teaching for years, the average Christian has virtually no knowledge of this little treasure, which can be found in The Apostolic Fathers in English (Baker, 2006) edited by Michael W. Holmes. That's too bad, because this earliest of church manuals contains some instructions that may help us to "do church" today.
A Primitive Simplicity
Let me disappoint any reader who is hoping to find in the Teaching evidence of a "lost Christianity" that will forever alter our understanding of the early church (like some Da Vinci Code conspiracy). The Teaching is thoroughly orthodox in its doctrine and, hence, from its discovery and subsequent publication in 1883, it has been included among the writings known as the Apostolic Fathers. But it is not just a simple repetition of information we already have in the New Testament. The initial point of the Teaching is that we should love God and others—taken from Deuteronomy 6:5 and from Jesus' command in Matthew 22:37-39. The Didache, however, adds a form of the Golden Rule familiar to Jewish readers: "Whatever you do not wish to happen to you, do not do to another." Ancient Jewish sources record the great rabbi Hillel expressing this idea in its negative form.Other Jewish themes, adapted to a Christian context, abound in the book. Ethical behavior is commended in the form of "two ways," a theme adapted right from the Old Testament (see Ps. 1:1-6). The Lord's Prayer is to be offered three times a day, just like the time-honored Jewish practice (Ps. 55:17). The prayers accompanying the Lord's Table, or the Eucharist, are forms of a familiar Jewish prayer called the birkat hamazon offered at meal times. Unfortunately, most of our churches today know little about the Jewish roots of early Christianity. To return to our Jewish roots involves more than occasionally inviting a Jewish believer to speak in our pulpits.
The Teaching also can guide us regarding false teachers, and it does so in a surprising way. While it commends strongly the ministry of hospitality, it uses equally strong language for those teachers who prey upon the kindness of believers. It sets the limit on traveling teachers' stays in believers' homes at one or two nights. Also, in accord with Jesus' teaching, such traveling itinerants were to be compensated by meeting their physical needs. With a refreshing straightforwardness, however, the Didachist admonishes concerning guest teachers: "But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet." One wonders what the Didachist would say today if he could witness the tearful requests for monetary gifts that come from some of our modern day "prophets." And what would early Christians think of preachers today who demand a certain fee for preaching at a church or conference?
The Teaching contains some refreshing advice on church life and organization. Consistent with the New Testament, it advises congregations "to appoint for yourselves overseers and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are humble and not avaricious and true and approved, for they too carry out for you the ministry of the prophets and teachers." Many writers have noticed a "primitive simplicity" in the way that the Teaching describes the pastoral ministry in local assemblies. One finds in it no elaborate hierarchy of "bishops, priests, and deacons" such as developed in the second century.
The Didachist encourages believers to attend to their teacher's words, to gather on the first day of the week to observe a simple Eucharist, and to confess their sins before the assembly. When did you last hear someone honestly confessing his or her sins before the congregation? While such a practice could be open to abuse, why omit it altogether, especially when the New Testament also commends it (James 5:16)?
Not many evangelical churches observe the Eucharist weekly, but the Teaching prescribes a simple liturgy for weekly observance, using Old Testament "servant" terminology for the Lord Jesus (Isa. 53). The observance of this Eucharist was in the context of an entire meal, the standard practice of the early church until well into the second century. Why do so many churches today exchange something as important as this experience for a 10-minute ceremony, tacked onto an otherwise unaltered worship service, observed once a month at most? My liturgical brethren may have something on me with their weekly Eucharist. But can they honestly say that they are observing what both Jesus and the Teaching command?
The only other sacrament or ordinance that the Teaching recognizes is baptism. However, it settles no Baptist-Presbyterian controversies, since it allows baptism by either immersion or pouring, in either cold flowing water or warm still water. This handling of the mode of baptism reveals a compassionate pastoral genius.
How, Not Why
The passage about baptism contains the following opening clause, "After you have reviewed all these things, then baptize." The "things" that were to be reviewed are the six chapters of instruction that the Didachist had just given. They consist almost exclusively of practical instructions relevant to the life of a renewed person saved from the rampant vices of a pagan empire. Missing, however, is any detailed instruction in what we today call theology. I emphasized before that the Teaching is thoroughly orthodox in doctrine, with a high Christology and a clear affirmation of the Trinity. But mostly the Teaching describes the behavior that should characterize a new believer.My perception is that the vast majority of instruction classes in our churches today deal primarily with what we are to believe, not how we are to obey. Perhaps the Teaching has something to offer us, when we find so many doctrinally orthodox believers struggling in their daily temptations, in their marriages, and in their practical Christian walks. Maybe a training program along the practical lines of the Teaching should replace the rote doctrinal rehearsals that characterize many of our classes for baptismal candidates.
Some churches today place a strong emphasis on eschatology and Bible prophecy. The New Testament also indicates that believers should be aware that they live in the "last days" (Heb. 1:2; 1 John 2:18). The lapse of a couple of generations since the birth of the church did not lessen that emphasis in the Teaching, which ends with an entire chapter devoted to eschatology. But if readers expect to find answers to all the prophetic puzzles and questions they have encountered, then they will be disappointed. Yes, the Antichrist is mentioned as the "world deceiver," but we get no clues as to who, specifically, the Antichrist will be. No clear indications of a sudden rapture are mentioned, but believers are warned that a fiery test is coming for them. No clear millennial position is advocated, but a resurrection for believers only is assumed. The book ends abruptly, with a reference to seeing the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven.
The Teaching's original readers did not need to be titillated by prophecy novels, but they did need to live holy lives in light of what lies ahead. Are we who are even closer to the coming of the Lord any different in our needs?
We often remark that we desire to minister like the early church. Well, here is a book that helps us better understand how to do just that.
William Varner teaches biblical studies and Greek at the Master's College in Santa Clarita, California. His book The Way of the Didache will be published in the fall by University Press of America.
The Didache on Taking Life
"You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery;" you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not be sexually promiscuous; "you shall not steal;" you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall not abort a child nor commit infanticide (2:2).The Didache on Baptism
Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: After you have reviewed all these things, baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit" (7:13).
This appeared in Christianity Today. Couldn't post a link for some reason, but following is their web address: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/006/13.30.html
No, I am saying that people on the opposite extremes of the center point represented by Catholicism twisted St. Augustine's words for their own purposes. I am not saying that the saint had ulterior motives!
Well, maybe you didn't exactly. But the RC and Orthodox do seem to hold a view that Mary was not a normal human being even prior to her birth. This is my objection.
That's what we believe. God gave Mary a singular grace, making her the greatest of all creation, one who will be called blessed for all generations. We cannot honor Mary enough - but it is because of GOD, not what Mary did on her OWN.
When we start putting halos on people's heads or calling them saints and co-redemptrix, we have taken away from their humanity and their frailty as men and women. God's glory is diminished if we posit that He created special beings who do not face the same trials as the rest of us.
Not at all! We realize that God blessed Mary, but not to the degree that she no longer had free will or was a robot. We believe that creation is allowed to cooperate with God - to choose good or evil. God's glory is not diminished, rather, His magnanimousity is amplified. God is not in fear that someone will "take His glory". He lovingly allows man to cooperate in His ongoing works in creation, giving man a dignity above any other visible creation. We highly venerate Mary for her life and her choices, and we love God all the more for giving us such a wonderful creation that totally committed herself in humility and obedience to the Word of God.
Mary did face a number of trials. I do not believe that she had supernatural knowledge. Certainly, choosing to bear child while not married yet subjected her to possible stoning. And whose sorrow exceeds that of the Dolorous Virgin, watching her Son die on a cross, knowing it was God's Will be done and probably not knowing why? No, Mary certainly suffered - a sword pierced her heart, too, at Calvary.
Regards
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.