Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]
Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

Posted on 06/03/2012 1:47:18 PM PDT by Salvation

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 
 
        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.
 
        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 
 
        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; converts; willconvertforfood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960 ... 1,061-1,062 next last
To: metmom; Salvation; Cronos

“do try to keep up” LOL!! you said “and when there’s different *rites* amongst Catholics ( generally concerning doctrinal differences that are determined to be critical to Salvation.... )

NOW, WHAT ARE THESE DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES AMONGST THE RITES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?????

THE EO, are not a “RITE” of the Catholic Church!


921 posted on 06/17/2012 8:39:16 AM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: metmom; boatbums; daniel1212

how do we know?

the passing on of the Apostolic Faith from one generation to the next, that we know will occur until Jesus returns at the end of the age. contrary to what the false teachers that have arisen have put forth ( as Jesus predicted they would ) the elect can not be fooled.


922 posted on 06/17/2012 8:43:46 AM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 919 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

that’s very interesting, but i would find it more interesting if you could produce one Scripture that instructs any Gentile Christian to keep the 7th day sabbath.

if i am a Gentile convert in Corinth, i am totally unaware of the 7th day sabbath. if i am supposed to keep it, wouldn’t the NT indicate this somewhere?


923 posted on 06/17/2012 8:47:13 AM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 904 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Two thousand years of oral tradition and we’re supposed to swallow that it was passed on unchanged in that time?

What a joke.


924 posted on 06/17/2012 9:35:20 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

The epistles to the Corinthians are a direct account of those Corinthians keeping the sabbath, and the appointed times. Ditto for every other congregation that Paul visited in his journeys.

There is nothing in the entire NT to indicate that any gentile or hebrew christian did anything but keep the appointed times. As for the sabbath, Paul didn’t instruct them that they ‘must’ honor any day, but that we are placed at liberty, under our personal convictions under Christ.

The point is that there was either honoring the Lord’s sabbath, or not honoring it. There never was any other day to honor. “Sunday” worship came centuries later, instituted by a pagan dictator, interested solely in consolidating his personal power.

Read the epistles openly, without preconceived bias, and you will see what they were doing. Prayer helps too.


925 posted on 06/17/2012 11:22:46 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 923 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“The epistles to the Corinthians are a direct account of those Corinthians keeping the sabbath, and the appointed times”

The Epistle doesn’t say anything about the Corinthians keeping the Sabbath. Where do you think you see this in the Epistle?

which pagan dictator are you talking about and what was the reaction from the Christians when he did this?


926 posted on 06/17/2012 1:16:31 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible”
Matthew 19:26

the joke is thinking the gates of hell prevailed against the Church, i have it on pretty good AUTHORITY this isn’t possible.


927 posted on 06/17/2012 1:19:20 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 924 | View Replies]

To: metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; Quix; smvoice; wmfights; Forest Keeper; ...


More As concerns Unam Sanctum, its plain inference is that the Orthodox are damned, but as often seen here, and in an 2006 FR thread on that subject, and in which you can see both sides represented, as with so much of infallible and non-infallible pronouncements (once you use your fallible human reasoning to full separate the two), this is open to interpretation. While there are Catholics* and Orthodox who hold that the plain import of Unam Sanctum is that all who will not confide themselves to the pope, submitting themselves to his care as the supreme magistrate, yet the majority view in Catholicism is that this does not excommunicate them, or that “excommunicate” does not necessarily mean they are damned. And the few today who hold that EENS (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus = outside the Church® there is no salvation) statements exclude Protestant do not see it has exlding Eastern Orthodox**.

Besides linguistics, most Roman Catholics will explain the more exclusive understanding Unam Sanctum away by saying that it was directed against French Catholics who were not submitting to the pope, and was part of an effort to to force the French bishops to pay a papal tax. And some will state that the current Catholic understanding of such EENS statements means that ultimately salvation comes instrumentally through her, thus allowing some Protestants to be saved (“how” being problematic and open to interpretation), and will assert that the Church does not have the power to “send” anyone to Hell. We have seen the sophistry regarding the latter recently here, being akin to arguing that the Supreme court does not have the power to send one to the electric chair, though those that do await its decision, while as many statements attest, formal submission to the pope was meant, with damnation being assured for those who would not.

The East–West Schism between Rome and the EOs formally dates to a mutual excommunication of 1054, however, the historical reasons for the this must be appreciated, and both sides vary in their understanding of the causes, or the degree of importance regarding the issues involved. Below are excerpts from the WP article on the East–West Schism (which, with its notes, I think gives a fair, if not fully indisputable, concise description)

The East–West Schism of 1054, sometimes known as the Great Schism,[1] formally divided the State church of the Roman Empire into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches, which later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, respectively. Relations between East and West had long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes.[2] Prominent among these were the issues of "filioque", and whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist,[3] the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy.[4]

Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius heightened the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respective domains. In 1054, Roman legates traveled to Cerularius to deny him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognize the Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches.[2] Cerularius refused. The leader of the Latin contingent, Cardinal Humbert, excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and other legates

The validity of the Western legates' act is doubtful, since Pope Leo had died, while Cerularius's excommunication applied only to the legates personally.[2] Still, the Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed, with each side accusing the other of having fallen into heresy and of having initiated the division. The Crusades, the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, the capture and sack of Constantinople in 1204, and the imposition of Latin Patriarchs made reconciliation more difficult.[2] This included the taking of many precious religious artifacts and the destruction of the Library of Constantinople.

Apparently in mutual mudslinging, the charges of the papal Bull against the Patriarch of Constantinople and his followers (not against all the Orthodox), were that ,

like Simoniacs, they sell the gift of God; like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy; like Arians, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins; like Donatists, they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world; like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar; like Severians, they say that the law of Moses is accursed; like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; like the Manichaeans among others, they state that leave is ensouled (animatum); like the Nazarenes, they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth and, in refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan; and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church. For these errors and many others committed by them, Michael himself, although admonished by the letters of our lord Pope Leo, contemptuously refused to repent. — http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

Oddly enough, the mutual excommunication of 1054 was partly due to one of the significant forgeries (among others) Rome used to assert her supremacy, that of the Donation of Constantine, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850, and often cited during during the Middle Ages in support of the Roman Church's claims to spiritual and temporal authority (and later exposed as a forgery by a humanist Italian Catholic priest and others in the early 1400s, though its authenticity was occasionally defended till about 1600.)

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent a letter to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, that cited a large portion of the forgery called the Donation of Constantine, believing it genuine.[56] The official status of this letter is acknowledged in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, entry on Donation of Constantine.[57]

"The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon it was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood."[58]

Leo IX assured the Patriarch that the donation was completely genuine, not a fable or old wives' tale, so only the apostolic successor to Peter possessed that primacy and was the rightful head of all the Church. The Patriarch rejected the claims of papal primacy, and subsequently the Catholic Church was split in two in the Great East-West Schism of 1054. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Mutual_excommunication_of_1054

* Catholics who hold to Unam Sanctum as damning the Orthodox, and by extension all who have removed themselves from the care of the pope, would be mostly found among sedevacantists, such as state,

Thus we are left with an apologetical task brethren, to dismantle the position of the eastern hoard of schismatics, those servants of the diabolical one who claim to be the sheep of Christ but are not. For Our Predecessor Boniface VIII declared concerning these liars who have abandoned the Ark in his Bull of 1302: Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' These schismatics are hidden beasts presenting themselves as men. http://www.romancatholicism.net/epistle20120205.htm

Note that the above sedevacantist group may not speak for all of them, but is one of the many sects within Catholicism interpreting Scripture, Tradition and history differently, as they have no assured infallible interpreter of their assuredly infallible magisterium. This “ultramontane” group, which musters an extensive list of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus statements, (http://www.romancatholicism.net/extraecclesiam.htm), is the most extreme in its positions, but not without warrant for all of them based upon historical documents, though its holds that, “The Vatican II cult, headed by Benedict XVI, is a false sect. It is not the original catholic faith. John XXIII (1958) and his successors inhabiting the Vatican have all been false popes.”

**One might think that a Catholic who holds that Protestants can only be saved if they die in Catholics faith might also place the same requirement on the Eastern Orthodox since they reject papal infallibility and Romish supremacy as being consistent with Tradition, Scripture and history. But while both claim to be the particular OTC in fullness, each claiming , apostolic succession even though their lines differ (and while Catholics use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 to support apostolic succession, yet tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church), and “to be authentic, a bishop must teach Apostolic Faith” (which they somewhat significantly differ on), so that a “Bishop who breaks away from the unity of the Church loses his claim to Apostolic Office,” (http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076) yet both sides overall see each other as legitimate bishops and proper successors of Peter. For Rome as holds, “once a priest always a priest” (and in ordination if they “intend to do what Rome does”), though this leads to more “Catholic” denominations. (http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurchnp.com)

Yet besides some Catholics excluding EOs, some EOs hold that the apostolic succession of Roman Catholicism is valid but is “basically empty and devoid of any importance since they are no longer part of the Apostolic Church,” (http://www.orthodoxforum.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=537) and the excommunication of Orthodox was mutual. Besides the excommunication by Patriarch Michael Cærularius of Pope Leo IX, St Mark of Ephesus wrote,

We have excised and cut them [the Papists] off from the common body of the Church, we have, therefore, rejected them as heretics, and for this reason we are separated from them"; they are, therefore, heretics, and we have cut them off as heretics.

All of which examples how under sola ecclesia and not just under SS there can be formal divisions, besides internal uncertainty and disagreements (yet note the standard for obedience and testing truth claims). Comments and some of the issues of disagreements are provided here.


928 posted on 06/17/2012 2:02:01 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 909 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; Quix; smvoice; ...

In other words, true to your sophist form, ignore what refutes you (including that Rome herself did not have an indisputable cannon until the year Luther died, while the Prots overall settled much quicker on theirs, consisting of two respective ancient ones) and just continue posting the more of same old spurious polemics.

In this it is a straw man, that erroneously presumes the material sufficiency of SS (nor prima Scriptura) does not provide for evangelists and the magisterium, and imagines that RC evangelism is that of Acts 8 (your choice of text),

in which not a word is said about submission to Rome or the other obligatory advertising about her,

and the authoritative substantiation for this faith was Scripture, as it was for preaching,

while (again) the condition of whole-hearted faith for baptism by a deacon,

who did not get his mission orders (to go to the desert) from Rome,

while the baptized soul was left to go on his way with only his Bible! Not very RC, who latter would put restrictions on laymen reading the Bible)

While also presuming the baptist position on baptism as to publicly confessing faith in the Lord Jesus - which type of confession Christ commanded - (Mt. 10:32; cf. Rm. 10:9,10) requires a lot of people (it need not), any more than putting the ring on in getting married (to which it is likened) does. It is confessing Christ by body language.

Of course, also utterly absent from Scripture, which can basically be superfluous to a RC, are other things previously listed, from prayed to the departed to a separate class of clergy called sacerdotal priests, to perpetual, assured formulaic infallibility as per Rome, upon which her distinctive supremacist claims of really rest, and the necessity of such to establish writings as Scripture and preserve Truth, and as being the real basis for assurance of Truth, versus conformity to what was established as Scripture, in text and in power, to the glory of Almighty God.


929 posted on 06/17/2012 3:02:58 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

>> “which pagan dictator are you talking about” <<

.
Constantine.

.
>> “and what was the reaction from the Christians when he did this?” <<

.
They either suffered under his tyranny, or migrated on to a place where they could worship the Lord.


930 posted on 06/17/2012 5:53:07 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 926 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; boatbums; metmom

alright, i am beginning to think you are a Catholic posing as a Baptist. you keep underhanding them to me, so i guess i will keep knocking them out of the park.

the arguement that the Church didn’t have a indisputable canon until the 16th century is the same as the Jehovah Witness saying the Church made Jesus Divine in the 4th century at Nicea. what the arguement fails to realize is historically, the Church meets in Council and decides matters ONLY WHEN THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT QUESTION RAISED. SO THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM IN THE FIRST CENTURY RULED GENTILE CONVERTS NEED NOT BE CIRCUMCISED, THE COUNCIL AT NICEA AFFIRMED THE DIVINITY OF JESUS, WHEN ARIUS DENIED IT AND TRENT ONCE AND FOR ALL SET THE CANON DUE TO PROTESTANT ERRORS. the Latin Vulgate had all of the canonical books in it already, the Protestants took the Bible of their day and REMOVED THE SO CALLED APOCRYPHA. ( some did not, the original King James Bible contained these books )
once again the point must be made, NO ONE HAD A 66 BOOK BIBLE UNTIL THE 16TH CENTURY!

now, as concerning the “material sufficiency of sola scriptura”, Acts 8 blows this false doctrine right out of the water. neither Philip, nor the eunuch practiced or believed in SS. if the eunuch believed in SS, he would have rejected Jesus as the Son of God since there is not any OT verse that says Jesus is the Son of God. Philip did not practice SS since He preached Jesus as the Son of God, again not using the OT.

Acts 8 also blows the Baptist doctrine of asking Jesus into your heart as your “personal Savior” and asking for Him to forgive your sins SEPERATE from Baptism. it is obvious Philip preached to Him Jesus Christ and baptism for the remission of sins. as they went along, the eunuch was brought to faith in Jesus and desired to have his sins forgiven, receive the Holy Spirit and become part of the Body of Christ by saying “ what is to prevent me from being baptized?” ( if Philip preached baptism is for a first act of obedience or as a public testimony, the eunuch could have been baptized SINCE THERE WERE NO WITNESSES PRESENT )
it is also obvious that prior to the eunuch’s question, he had NOT expressed faith in Jesus, had NOT asked Jesus into his heart, had NOT asked Jesus to forgive his sins. HOW DO WE KNOW? BECAUSE IF HE HAD, PHILIP WOULD HAVE SAID “YES, YOU MAY BE BAPTIZED” but since Philip answered him by saying “IF YOU BELIEVE WITH ALL YOUR HEART, YOU MAY”, this tells us this was his FIRST expression of faith in Jesus.
NOT VERY BAPTIST OF HIM. The eunuch and Philip both believed that Philip had the AUTHORITY to preach the Word of God and baptize, how very Catholic of them.

btw, what Scripture likens a marriage ring to baptism, i am unaware of this one?


931 posted on 06/17/2012 5:57:07 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 929 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Tradition / Church Fathers
On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.” Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death—whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master.” Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110

you better study a little harder Church history. the Didache, written in the late first century and at the time some believed to be Scripture, says to assemble on the “Lord’s Day”, i.e. the first day of the week, or as we know it today, Sunday.

St Ignatius, taught by the Apostle John, said the Church no longer observed the Sabbath in his day, again late first century.

the “pagan dictator” would not live for another 200 years!

who suffered under his tyranny or migrated to another place, this is just made up hocus pocus, NOT SUPPORTED BY HISTORY.

again, i request you to show me from the NT where the Corinthian Church kept the 7th day sabbath.


932 posted on 06/17/2012 6:06:56 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 930 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

The breaking of bread of which you speak occurred on the Passover; an appointed time of YHWH.

Don’t bother to post anything to me from non-scriptural babblings of men. Those men were lost, and will take you down with them if you allow it.


933 posted on 06/17/2012 6:13:47 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
BTW, what is Ramzan???

I was wondering about that as well! LOL. I wouldn't worry too much about the mockers here. They demonstrate repeatedly that nothing someone says is too trivial or inconsequential that pieces here and there can't be used at a later date of their choosing when they feel they simply MUST say something but nothing intelligible comes to mind. It's kind of pitiable, really.

934 posted on 06/17/2012 11:28:43 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 912 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; daniel1212; metmom
the passing on of the Apostolic Faith from one generation to the next, that we know will occur until Jesus returns at the end of the age. contrary to what the false teachers that have arisen have put forth ( as Jesus predicted they would the elect can not be fooled.

God cares much more about maintaining orthodox truth than relying upon "word of mouth" to keep it pure. Mankind is NOTORIOUS for attaching legends, myths, boastings and biases into what actually IS already recorded in Holy Scripture (i.e.; the Apocryphal books) to leave it up to fallible men to keep it all straight orally. Hasn't it ever occurred to you how remarkable it is we have writings that stretch back THOUSANDS of years yet are still just as relevant and effective, touching and insightful, soul wrenching and comforting as they were when they first written? Why is that, you think? Could it possibly be because God is the author - the creator of all that is who knows the thoughts and intents of every heart that ever existed and ever will exist?

The "false" teachers that have popped up over the centuries either didn't bother with sacred Scripture or twisted what was written to fool those who did not take the time to know what it really said. These deceitful workers were disputed BY the Scriptures to prove their contentions WERE false. That is how I know when I hear a false doctrine being espoused - I know what the Word really does say and what it doesn't say. And, rather than depend upon another person's word that something is true or not, I do my own research which entails reading the word, studying past theologians, reading different translations of the verses in question including the Greek or Hebrew words, meditating upon the Word, prayer and listening to the Holy Spirit. That's why we are commended TO study in the first place. My eternal destiny is too precious a thing to entrust to sinful and fallible men. I go to the source and it is NOT a religion or organization of men. What was passed down from one generation to the next of the tenets of the Christian faith are found in the Bible and any group that purports to be the true faith had BETTER have the backing of Holy Scripture.

935 posted on 06/17/2012 11:54:49 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Two thousand years of oral tradition and we’re supposed to swallow that it was passed on unchanged in that time? What a joke.

It IS a joke. Many of our modern languages didn't even exist in the early centuries A.D. Not only that, some words totally changed meanings over time (i.e.; to "let", used to mean "to hold back" but now it means "to allow") or words in one language had no comparable word in another language. The Greek language often uses multiple words to express a concept that in English, for example, gets translated as one word. For example, in John 10:28, the Greek word translated as the one English word "never" is really a triple negative and, rather than the verse saying we "shall never perish", in Greek it is saying, "no, not, never, at any time, any place, for any purpose, whether male, female or even neuter, perpetually, eternally" perish. Big difference, right? So, depending just upon oral "tradition" to keep the truth pure is a mighty flimsy method - one that Almighty God already demonstrated by the Old Testament writings is NOT His preferable way. God inspired it, God preserves it.

936 posted on 06/18/2012 12:10:59 AM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 924 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Many of our modern languages didn't even exist in the early centuries A.D.

That's an excellent point.

It's ludicrous to think that something could remain unchanged over the course of 2,000 years even if the culture and language remained completely static for that whole time, and of course we know it hasn't.

Which is the second point, just how many languages does this oral tradition go through. And you KNOW that you ALWAYS lose something in the translation. What's going to happen as it goes through 3 or 4 languages?

937 posted on 06/18/2012 5:05:12 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 936 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day

There's only one Lord's Day in the scriptures and it is not Sunday...

You guys ought to dump those forged writings of Ignatius...Pick up a bible and find out what the 'real' Lord's Day is...

Jesus doesn't care what day we worship...Course he'd like us to worship every day...

938 posted on 06/18/2012 7:02:45 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
once again the point must be made, NO ONE HAD A 66 BOOK BIBLE UNTIL THE 16TH CENTURY!

Capital letters??? Well then it must be true...HaHaHa...

939 posted on 06/18/2012 7:17:16 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 931 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; Quix; smvoice; ...

alright, i am beginning to think you are a Catholic posing as a Baptist.

This is not the first time you have been mistaken.

you keep underhanding them to me, so i guess i will keep knocking them out of the park.

You have quite insolent and arrogant in your imagination, as rather than knocking anything out the park, i invite all to see it is you who are getting counted out on strikes as you try to assert Roman doctrines or actually try to defend them.

1. the arguement that the Church didn’t have a indisputable canon until the 16th century is the same as the Jehovah Witness saying the Church made Jesus Divine in the 4th century at Nicea...the Latin Vulgate had all of the canonical books in it already, the Protestants took the Bible of their day and REMOVED THE SO CALLED APOCRYPHA. ( some did not, the original King James Bible contained these books )

Wrong! Besides no one actually making Jesus Divine or made writings Scripture, the recognition of the Scriptural substantiated Divinity of Christ allowed dispute in Roman Catholicism after Nicea, while there clearly was for Catholics about the canon, despite the resistance to the fact that you did not have an indisputable canon until the 16th century.

Your assertion about the KJV containing the apocrypha (as did Luther's, and the KJV list is slightly larger than the Roman Catholic one), shows you are not informed that it was a practice going back to antiquity to include books in Bibles that were not considered properly Scripture, but were allowed to be read for edification, constituting a second canon. The Greek words Deutero and canona actually mean"second canon.” As the CE explains (emphasis mine),

“..the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

As regards the Vulgate, apparently not all contained the apocrypha, nor were they all uniform (the oldest extant manuscript contains the “Epistle to the Laodiceans).

At the end of the fourth century Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the most learned biblical scholar of his day, to prepare a standard Latin version of the Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate). In the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of prefaces called the reader's attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the Latin Bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome's prefaces, and during the medieval period the Western Church generally regarded these books as part of the holy Scriptures.” Introductory material to the appendix of the Vulgata Clementina, text in Latin

The Vulgate manuscripts included prologues that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical (Prologues of Saint Jerome, Latin text )

Nor did Trent settle the question as to which version of the varying Vulgate editions it affirmed, thus requiring a thorough revision, as there was no single authoritative edition at that time, and resulting in the embarrassing Sistine Vulgate. Correction of its many errors resulted in the first edition of the Clementine Vulgate (official version till 1979) which was presented as a Sixtine edition (with a preface in which Bellarmine charitably attributed the problem of the previous version to being that of copyist errors, rather than being the fault of Sixtus). In 1592, Pope Clement VIII published this revised edition of the Vulgate, referred to as the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. He moved three books, 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses (commonly found in medieval MSS of the Vulgate, immediately after 2Chronicles, and not found in the canon of the Council of Trent) from the Old Testament into an appendix "lest they utterly perish" (ne prorsus interirent). — http://sacredbible.org/vulgate1861/scans/817-Apocrypha.jpg)

And then there is the confusing and contentious issue of non-canonical Second Esdras (two by that name) also known as 3rd (or Esdras A) or 4th Esdras (as in the Vulgate) , also called Apocalypse of Ezra!

2. the Protestants took the Bible of their day and REMOVED THE SO CALLED APOCRYPHA.

Which “removal “presupposes that they were the first to remove books from an indisputable canon, rather than the established Protestant canon being one that reverted to antiquity, which it is evidenced to be the case (it is even argued that a Jewish canon was fixed by the time do Hasmonean dynasty).

Protocanonical (protos, "first") is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the "Apocrypha" — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

As regards removing books from a dogmatic canon, I did not want to have to do this, but as you act as if my linked article did not substantiate that Trent provided the first indisputable canon, the FACT is that your own sources state (emphasis mine throughout the proceeding),

► “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament, (1917); http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)

► "The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.(Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;

► “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p. 390).

► The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG27: "The final definitive list of biblical books (including the seven additional Old Testament books) was only drawn up at the council of Trent in 1546. “Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, The Bible, The Church, And Authority [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)

► "...an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, French Dominican cardinal and theologian, in Tradition and Traditions" [New York: Macmillan, 1966], p. 38).

► As Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400 page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)

It may be a surprise to some to know that the “canon,” or official list of books of the Bible, was not explicitly defined by the Church until the 16th century though there was a clear listing as early as the fourth century. (Leonard Foley, O.F.M., Believing in Jesus: A Popular Overview of the Catholic Faith, rev. ed. (St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1985, p. 21)

"For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, S.J., A.B., classics, Fordham University, “The Bible, The Church, And Authority;” [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)

In addition,

The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

Dissent before and in Trent

Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Hubert_Jedin explained.he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin writes that his position was

► “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)

►“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)

Cardinal Cajetan himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.

"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63

Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64 http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836

Theologian Cardinal Cajetan also stated,

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.” — Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)

3. the Church meets in Council and decides matters ONLY WHEN THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT QUESTION RAISED

So much for Vatican Two, which was called to “to let some fresh air into the Church” and to promote within her an aggiornamento. The Italian word aggiornamento is usually translated as ‘bringing up to date’. Initially, Pope John’s intentions were to open the Church and strive for Christian Unity, but without detail. — http://vatican2voice.org/2need/need.htm

However, while you seem to reject Vatican Two, the premise of the often used above polemic is that the lack of an ecumenical council providing an infallible canon was because it was not an issue, as no one questioned the apocrypha, as reflected in its inclusion in the Vulgate. However, books were questioned by substantial scholars, and no one version of the Vulgate was yet official so as to disallow dissent, nor apparently did they all contain the apocrypha, but the lack of dogmatic status for the apocryphal books only became a conciliar issue when they became being part of a challenge to doctrine by those who rested upon Scripture and who challenged Rome and doctrine thereby. Thus while internal dissent was allowed, to counter the Reformers on their own basis it was necessary to dogmatically affirm the books in question, which Trent finally did.

And rather than helping your case for an indisputable canon, the reality is that if there had been one then Trent would not have had to finally issue one, which it did after internal disagreement, and after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it. Had not Luther forced her hand, Rome would be content with a generally accepted canon, not an indisputable one, as she, and not Scripture is the supreme authority. And even then, Catholics cannot tell how many infallible pronouncements there are and which they must give assent of faith to.

4. no one had a 66 book bible until the 16th century!

As if this were disparaging in the light of the facts even if it could be proven, which it cannot, an presupposes an indisputable fixed canon, while the evidence shows they were reverting back to a more ancient canon than Trent's. If there was a ancient 39 book canon of the OT books Prots hold to (taking into account how books were divided), reflective of the tripartite Palestinian canon of the time of Christ which is indicated in Lk. 24:44, as well as an long-established 27 book canon, and if the Reformation began in the 16th century, which it did, then the Prots have a solid basis for their canon, and overall settled it quicker (in about 100 years) than Rome did (though history helped).

But even in thinking to prove something, you are either denying that there never was an ancient canon of the books of the Protestant OT, and or that 39 + 27 do not make 66, or that no Bible existed that reflected the rejection of the apocryphal books as Scripture (note again that there was a distinction often made between books included in bibles, even in the early KJV), and no such canon could exist because the canon was indisputable, but which it did not, even if it was overall settled.

However, if there was no infallible indisputable canon, which there was not (and again, some also argue that the canon of Trent differs with Hippo and others as regards 1 + 2 Esdras with its confusing nomenclature), and if some rejected the apocrypha as actually being Scripture, and if not all the Vulgates had the apocrypha, and they did not, then then this allows for editions reflecting a rejection of the Apocrypha.

And which may be reflected in 16 century Bibles. Cardinal Cajetan. who opposed Martin Luther at Augsburg published a Commentary in 1518 on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament but which did not include the Apocrypha. Also,

In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia [the first printed polyglot of the entire Bible, which was sanctioned by Pope Leo X.]. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification. — http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1877

The Zürich Bible (The French Bible (1535) of Pierre Robert Olivétan placed them between the Testaments, with the subtitle, "The volume of the apocryphal books contained in the Vulgate translation, which we have not found in the Hebrew or Chaldee".1529–30) they are placed in an Appendix. They include 3 Maccabees, along with 1 Esdras & 2 Esdras.

The French Bible (1535) of Pierre Robert Olivétan placed them between the Testaments, with the subtitle, "The volume of the apocryphal books contained in the Vulgate translation, which we have not found in the Hebrew or Chaldee." — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#Other_early_Bible_editions

Yet the point is that rather than a departure, the 66 book Protestant canon had ancient support.

5. now, as concerning the “material sufficiency of sola scriptura” Acts 8 blows this false doctrine right out of the water. neither Philip, nor the eunuch practiced or believed in SS.

Nor by that measure, did Mary or Elisabeth believe in sola ecclesia, as the church was not yet constituted, likewise the full formal sufficiency of Scripture awaited the fullness of written revelation, and Scripture materially provided for the church and that. But before both the church and the competed canon Scripture was the supreme transcendent standard as the assured Word of God, and both Philip and the eunuch treated it as such, by which the claims of Christ were substantiated, and enabling further writings to be recognized as Scripture.

But besides the aforementioned differences which contrasts Acts 8:29-27 with Rome, which per usual, you ignore, you indicate that you do not understand the difference between material sufficiency and formal sufficiency. The latter is restricted (normally enabling salvation and growth but not replacing the church or negating the need for the magisterium, etc., as instrument and helps) and most fully refers to a completed canon (likewise sola ecclesia awaited to the apostolic age), while the supremacy of Scripture is upheld, and it materially provides for additions to it by Scriptural substantiation of the Word of God being written, and of such writings being established as Scripture (without Rome), due to their qualities and attestation. In so doing it also provides for a canon of Divine writings being recognized, as well as for the church, but in subjection to Scripture.

And as the Old Testament establishes Scripture as being the standard for testing and establishing truth claims, thus the Son of God and the Holy Spirit inspired writers so often invoked them for support , in text and in power. For they substantiated “the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, " (Romans 1:1-2) and which mystery was revealed in power, as it "now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: " (Romans 16:26)

The fact is that even if the assuredly infallible magisterium owed its validation to Scripture then it would cede primacy to it, but instead assurance of its decrees effectively rests upon its premise of formulaic infallibility, rendering its own teaching that it is infallible to be infallible, and Scripture and its authoritative meaning is what she declares.

6. if the eunuch believed in SS, he would have rejected Jesus as the Son of God since there is not any OT verse that says Jesus is the Son of God. Philip did not practice SS since He preached Jesus as the Son of God, again not using the OT.

You again demonstrate seeing only what you want to see, as besides the fact that the New Testament invoked OT texts as teaching that Christ was the Son of God (below), Philip was indeed using the OT. The eunuch himself was reading Is. 53, a most profound extended prophecy of Christ, and what Acts 8:35 actually says is,

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. " (Acts 8:35)

Thus rather than not using the O.T. as you assert, Philip began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus, and after the manner of the apostles who trained him (and the N. T. writers), it is most naturally expected that he would have explained what Is. 53 meant in the light of Scripture to men such as this, backing up the story of Christ from the Old Testament. As Peter did, (Acts 2:14-36) and Paul , who “preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God,” who “reasoned with them out of the scriptures,” “persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses,“ (Acts 9:20; 17:2; 28:23) and Apollos, "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)

As for your other assertion that “there is not any OT verse that says Jesus is the Son of God,” that is like saying there is no verse that says “Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ,” but such demands for such explicit verses the apostles disagreed with, as Paul, who for one certainly found that there was:

"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. " (Acts 13:33) Which references, "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. " (Psalms 2:7)

And which also provides, "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. " (Psalms 2:12)

As did the writer of Hebrews,

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? " (Hebrews 1:5; cf. 5:5)

The OT also provides, "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? " (Proverbs 30:4)

7. Acts 8 also blows the Baptist doctrine of asking Jesus into your heart as your “personal Savior” and asking for Him to forgive your sins SEPERATE from Baptism. it is obvious Philip preached to Him Jesus Christ and baptism for the remission of sins. as they went along,

Yo are correct that he did not lead him in a verbal “sinner's prayer,” yet while you ignore what i said, as that other souls were justified and saved through expressing such, (Lk. 18:13,14; 23:39-43) being those of a broken and contrite spirit whom God promises to save, (Ps.. 34:18) testifying that the faith that is behind baptism is what appropriates justification, as per Rm. 4:1-7ff. And the RC teaching on “baptism by desire” actually allows for salvation with out actual baptism, but not normatively. (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32085) CCC1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

But under the premise that baptism is necessary for the remission of sins you then must reprove Peter for not preaching this in Acts 10:38-43, in which (as i showed you last year) souls clearly were forgiven of their sins and born again SEPERATE/ before from Baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9), despite your attempts to explain it away. Thus in restricting your soteriology to selective verses you disallow others.

Moreover, what Phillip essentially did is lead the eunuch in a “sinner's prayer” in body language, as both are a confession of faith in the Lord Jesus, as per "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " (Romans 10:9-10)

But as in Acts 10:43-47, baptism should be concomitant with the salvation decision. As while it is clear that souls can be regenerated before baptism, and again, which the Roman Catholic teaching of baptism by desire recognizes, but normatively as possible believing and confessing in baptism that should be one event. That they not is a result of the overreaction to teaching the act of baptism works ex opere operatos (by the act itself) conveying the grace of regeneration in infants, etc. by proxy faith, which Acts 8 does not teach, nor that any other conversion account.

Meanwhile, it is not enough for you to contend against baptism being marginalize as a superfluous act, which i also oppose due to what one is confessing by it (and have no problem with baptism being a “sinner's prayer” in confessing Christ unto salvation), but you must not allow anyone to be forgiven and regenerated before baptism.

Thus the eunuch was saved because he was reading and searching for truth in Scripture, heard the gospel supported by Scripture, was not told anything about submitting to a church in Rome or going through weeks of indoctrination promoting her as per the norm for Roman Catholic converts, in contrast to Scripture, and was baptized as a believer according to Scripture, and was left with no discipleship but his Bible. While the latter was not the norm, yet despite the warranted emphasis on baptism, this is still much in contrast to Rome.

8. btw, what Scripture likens a marriage ring to baptism,

The context was your reference to Baptist teaching, which uses it to explains baptism, and the use of analogies is Scriptural. But if you are against analogies or against this one then you must oppose baptism being referred to as “the like figure,” [antitupon=Neuter of a compound of G473 and G5179; corresponding (“antitype”), that is, a representative, counterpart: - (like) figure] as the flood and deliverance of Noah was, (1Pt. 3:21; cf. Heb. 9:24) both of which can be seen as figures representing salvation through Christ. Baptism there is called “the demand of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” as a good conscience calls for obedience toward Christ, and thus souls being called to confess Christ for salvation, as well as those who have already received Him, would answer the call to be baptized, such faith as is behind the confession being justificatory.

In summation (order not exact)

1. Any idea is refuted that the Protestants removed books from an a indisputable canon, under the inference of a uniform Vulgate or all containing it, rather than reverting back to an ancient OT canon, while affirming the long-established 27 book canon, thus having ancient support for its 66 book canon.

2. The premise that the lack of an ecumenical council providing an infallible canon was due to it being settled, reflected in the Vulgate, is refuted by the fact that it the apocryphal books were yet questioned, and their was not yet an official version disallowing that, and the lack of dogmatic status for the apocryphal books became an issue only because they were part of a challenge to doctrine by Luther and Reformers who rested upon Scripture and who challenged Rome and her doctrines thereby.

3. That Phillip not the eunuch did not believe in SS because he would have rejected Jesus as the Son of God since there is not any OT verse that says Jesus is the Son of God is refuted on that basis by the apostles and inspired writers who invoked O.T. texts as teaching that the Christ was the Son of God, as it does. (Acts 13:33 Psalms 2:7,12 Hebrews 1:5; cf. 5:5)

4. That Philip did not practice SS since He preached Jesus as the Son of God, again not using the OT is refuted on that basis as Philip began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus, and it is incongruous that he would not have done as the other apostles and disciples did with such souls, “shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:28)

5. The premise that SS is invalid because the Scripture lacked formal sufficiency ignores how SS is established, and also negates sola ecclesia before the church existed (as well as after it did, because it looked to Scripture as the supreme authority by which the claims of Christ and preaching were substantiated). But Scripture materially provided for both the church and the establishment of a complete canon, and before both of them Scripture was the supreme transcendent standard as the assured Word of God. And which is how both Philip and the eunuch treated it.

6. That Acts 8 also “blows the Baptist doctrine of asking Jesus into your heart as your “personal Savior” and asking for Him to forgive your sins SEPERATE from Baptism” is refuted as the Scriptures makes it clear that washing and regeneration can take place before baptism, (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9) and that souls were justified by faith expressed in prayer, (Lk 18: testifying to the faith that is behind baptism is what appropriates justification, and which Rome allows for. And that the eunuch believed and thus was baptized, faith and works going together like light and heat as Reformers taught, for saving faith is not alone, and baptism can be the occasion of actual regeneration, though the faith behind it is precisely what is counted for righteousness.

7. That baptism cannot be representative but must be for the remission of sins is countered by the fact that souls were washed and regenerated prior to baptism, but can be seen in 1Pt. 3:21, this being the response of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," (1 Peter 3:21) which those who are being called to confess Christ as well those have by other ways will answer. Glory to God.

Also refuted are the multiple other things in posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=906#906

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=851#851

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=870#870

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=806#806

These are cataloged due to you arrogant self promotion of Rome and rash reiterations of refuted polemics, and while you are discouraged from seeking Truth by objective examination, as you let Rome do the driving for you and Scripture is only used doctrinally to try to support and conform it to Rome, those of us who seek to live by it must seek to be and do as the noble Bereans did, by the grace of a merciful God of Truth.

940 posted on 06/18/2012 3:23:00 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 931 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960 ... 1,061-1,062 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson