Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
What I said about bishops is not my private interpretation. My private interpretations are just that. I defer to the Church, regardless of what I think or interpret privately.
Well, at least you admit to private interpretation.
How many Bishops do you have who are married? If a Bishop wants to get married, does he have to stand down from his position?
In the keys promised to +Peter (Mat 16:19) and the Apostles (18:18) as the elders of the Church, the body of believers, with apostoles and appointed elders at the helm.
The church is the “Bride of Christ” given to Him by the Father
The Church is also His Body, of which He is the Head. So He is the bride of His own Body? After He left on the Pentecost the Church, the body of believers was entrusted to the Apostles.
Well, Luke 24:33-50 and Acts 1 say that there many more than the eleven, including women
But +Matthew (a witness) and +Mark (a follower of +Peter, a witness) say otherwise. +Luke was a follower of +Paul; neither were witnesses. Even if there were women included , this is contradicted by +Paul himself when he preaches that women shold remain silent in the church.
The point is that those who were entrusted to teach and baptize were not the laity, but the elders of the Church.
I understand how materialistic your faith is, but if your interpretation is correct (which I don't believe it is) the folks claiming infant baptism imparts Grace are in deep trouble. All examples of baptism in Scripture involve adults after they have believed. Trying to claim your historic lineage somehow gives you special powers just doesn't fly with those who actually read Scripture.
I believe there are several ways to interpret this verse.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he can not enter the kingdom of God.
I think the most straight forward is Jesus is talking about physical birth and spiritual birth. Another very reasonable understanding is Jesus was using the phrase "born of water" as a symbol for the word of God.
If you notice in Mark 16:16 it is not the lack of baptism that condemns.
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
I have always admitted to private "musings." The important this is that I defer to the Church in the final analysis, no matter what I concocted in my head.
How many Bishops do you have who are married?
Zero. None.
If a Bishop wants to get married, does he have to stand down from his position?
Yes. That is the self-imposed Church discipline. A Bishop in the East is almost always drawn from the ranks of monastics who have given up their wordily treasures and devoted their entire life to Christ. They can also, in exceptional circumstances, be elected from the ranks of widowed priests.
From a practical POV if it was so little why did he pray to The Father to take the cup from him?
One more thing, apropos this question, a priest or deacon cannot be married after they receive the holy orders (ordination). They must be married prior to that. Thus, a bishops who decided to get married could not remain in any ordianed capacity in the Church.
***Yes. That is the self-imposed Church discipline. ***
That’s my point. Extra-Biblical church traditions opposing the Bible. In your church the Bible is secondary to whatever the church decides is right. There is no BIBLICAL requirement for the Bishop to be single. In fact, the Bible states that Bishops must be married to one wife.
There has never been a binding ecumenical council that did what you claim. So please lay out for us how all this was accomplished and when.
So God had nothing to do with it?
Why?
Likewise.
What else is new? We prefer to follow the interpretatkion believed by the Church all along, when the Church put together the canon.
There is evidence of baptizing whole families and second century grave markers indicate infants who died with words "servent of the Lord."
John 3:5...Jesus is talking about physical birth and spiritual birth.
The Church always treated that as water baptism and sacramental seal of the HS (chrismation) as one Baptism.
Another very reasonable understanding is Jesus was using the phrase "born of water" as a symbol for the word of God
Oh, please...
If you notice in Mark 16:16 it is not the lack of baptism that condemns. Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved
Being baptized is necesssry part of the salvational formula. If you are baptized and you don't believe, you cannot be saved through baptism alone. But infants cannot believe; they can be patized however.
Baptized children are washed of their sin. They are sinless until the age of reason. If they do not believe after the age of reason, their baptism is no longer sufficient.
Nowhere in those verses does it say that the church was given to anyone. He says “the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven” and that is not the church. Nowhere do the scriptures say that the church was entrusted to the Apostles alone or only those who succeeded the Apostles. The church at Antioch is a prime example of a church not run by Apostles. In fact it was run by laymen “prophets and teachers” who moved by the Holy Spirit, singled out Paul and Barnabas to go on the first missionary journey. If the church was under the direction of an Apostle, why was it necessary for the lay people to authorize two Apostles to go out preaching?
“But +Matthew (a witness) and +Mark (a follower of +Peter, a witness)” Mark does not include the “Great Commission” in his Gospel. It ends at chapter 16:8, the rest was added sometime later by an unknown. Luke, however, researched his material from many sources, Luke 1:1-3, “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,”
“The point is that those who were entrusted to teach and baptize were not the laity, but the elders of the Church.”
In Acts 18:24-28, it is Aquilla and his wife Priscilla, tent makers, who teach Apollos the way and then he becomes a powerful teacher in Ephesus and Corinth, so much so, his following almost splits the church at Corinth. Nowhere is it said that Priscilla , Aquilla or Apollos, all laity, were empowered by the Apostles to teach or were answerable to the Apostles, yet they were carrying out the “Great Commission”.
The first time I saw this I figured you were just having a bad moment so I let it go. Obviously I was wrong, you really believe this. If this is the EO position it explains a little about how the muslims came to your lands and dominated your church for centuries. You didn't have enough clergy to convert them.
Matt. 10:32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven."
Then why do you baptize non believers?
There is evidence of baptizing whole families and second century grave markers indicate infants who died with words "servent of the Lord."
Error creeps in quickly. IIRC, there were others who tried to wait till just before they died to be baptized because they were afraid if they sinned afterward they would be condemned.
That's asinine. We are given one single prayer in the Bible as a commandment; are we then "opposing" the Bible by having prayers other than "Our Father?" Is there a prohibition against more than one prayer in the Bible? Is there a prohibition against celibacy in the Bible? Are you just trying to be obtuse or what?
Bible is secondary to whatever the church decides is right
The Bible is central to the life of the Church, bit is not the only source of authority in it. The Church existed before the Bible. The Church was not founded on the Bible but the Bible on the Church.
You are preaching bibliolatry.
There is no BIBLICAL requirement for the Bishop to be single
No there isn't. There is also no prohibition against him being celibate.
In fact, Apostle Paul calls on men to be like him (single and celibate). Is St. Paul "opposing" the Bible? He is about as senior as it gets in the Church.
In fact, the Bible states that Bishops must be married to one wife
In fact, this means that if he is married he must be married only to ONE wife, not more than one. Nothing prohibits the Church from imposing a discipline upon itself that is in line with the lifestyle practiced by the Apostles and our Lord Himself; a life of celibacy.
***You are preaching bibliolatry.***
And you are preaching churchiology.
I think I just coined a new word. Thanks Kosta50!
The Great Commission says "baptize in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit..." it says nothing of the need to believe. Baptism is for the remission of sins. We are cleansed of them, voluntary or involuntary.
Those who are baptized and do not believe when they can believe cannot be saved based on baptism alone. The infants and children can, for they have no sin. Our Lord makes it very clear that unless we are like them (without sin) we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
Unbaptized children cannot be saved, save for God's will to save whomever He desires. But the Church is commanded to baptize regardless of age, race or gender, and teach them the Gospels.
Error creeps in quickly. IIRC, there were others who tried to wait till just before they died to be baptized because they were afraid if they sinned afterward they would be condemned
Who objected to infant baptism in the 1st through 16th centiry? Why are they errors? There is nothing that says you cannot baptize children. Nothing! Baptized children are the ideal Christ wants us to be like.
there were others who tried to wait till just before they died to be baptized because they were afraid if they sinned afterward they would be condemned
That's the chance some are willing to take. It's valid, however. It may not seem fair, but it's valid. Just like the vineyard workers wages. He problem is that you may not have a chance to be baptized before you die, so it's a gamble.
However, the Church also has the sacrament of repentance and confession, and communion, through which we can keep our sins to a minimum if we truly repent ad receive the Lord in contrite heart and true repentance, fasting and prayer, changing our lives so that we do not repeat those sins; in other words, it's forgiven, now "go and sin no more" type of forgiveness. Not something you can come back every Sunday and confess over and over.
Whatever feeds you ego, I don't care. That doesn't change the fact that the Churech existed before the Christian Bible did. The Church functioned, lived we would say, without the Bible for many years, so the Bible is not the sole source of its authority and tradition, of which the Apostles were an integral and crucial part.
These are facts. You can stick your head into the sand and pretend that nothing is true except what's in your mind...that's always an option. Cyber reality revisited.
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.