The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Excellent! As always, great job daniel1212!

And which does not negate the importance of teachers, and the many good commentaries we have, but none of them are assuredly infallible,as Scripture is in its teaching, and we should “prove all things, hold fast that is good.” (1Thes. 5:21)

And should and seek to heed, “in necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom; in everything compassion,” often misattributed to St. Augustine of Hippo, though it exists in different forms, and a similar saying comes from a 16th century German Lutheran theologian Peter Meiderlin (also known as Rupertus Meldenius), who said,

“In a word, let me say: if we keep in necessary things Unity, in unnecessary things Freedom, and in both Charity, our affairs would certainly be in the best condition”.

A couple of comments on this from other sources:

Rome’s answer to Sola Scriptura is Sola Verbum Dei, or “The Word of God Alone.” Rome believes that the Word of God is contained in the Scriptures, Tradition, in her Magisterium—including ex cathedra papal statements. But Rome cannot produce an infallible list of ex cathedra papal statements from within what she calls the Word of God. Thus, in order to convey the Word of God, Roman Catholics must appeal to something which is not contained in the Word of God. Sola Verbum Dei therefore becomes self-refuting by the standards of Rome’s own apologists. Perhaps Rome should spend time proving why her version of Sola Verbum Dei is not self-refuting by her own standards before worrying about whether or not Sola Scriptura is. http://www.examiningbeliefs.com/apol75.htm

Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that “without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone”. These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a “drink of milk and honey” then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these “observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law”. Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the “apostolic tradition” was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don’t the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things? www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

Details, details.......

Thanks be to God. However, expect the same denials, due to the premise which essentially keeps coming back,

But the appeal to antiquity [any anything as contradicting or as superior to Rome] is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. (Henry Edward Cardinal Manning)

God bless you, dear Daniel1212, for your most excellent, theologically and historically sound rebuttals. I know you must know that those persons who toss out such inane questions as those given to you - and that you patiently and repeatedly answer - probably have no intention to read, much less heed, your advice. I praise God that you answer them anyway for I also know that God directs other eyes to these threads that we may never know about and the truths you faithfully express will NOT be said in vain. Thank you for your efforts!

"I praise God that you answer them anyway for I also know that God directs other eyes to these threads that we may never know about...:

Amen bb!

Thankyou so much daniel your efforts are indeed very much appreciated.From where I sit you are excelling at edifying the church and that FRiend is(as you well know)a good thing!

The truth sets us free.

God bless you.

Praise God for what is good and for your encouragement, as they do take time, but all by God's grace and may He be glorified, and both myself and others are edified, though it does take time to read through such. Your statements as the reception and effect are warranted. It is good to know that the N.T. church did believe that the O.T. taught that Jesus was the Son of God, etc., and it abundant references to the Scriptures as the assured word of God, but which their own preaching was substantiated, manifests its supremacy over those who presume, like the Pharisees, presume more authority than what is written. (1Cor. 4:6) ►For the decision of their Scribes, or "Soferim" (Josephus, σοπισταί; N. T., γραμματεἴς), consisting originally of Aaronites, Levites, and common Israelites, they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error (Sifre, Deut. 153-154); they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times (see Abrogation of Laws), and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death (Ber. 4a). By dint of this authority, claimed to be divine (R. H. 25a), they put the entire calendric system upon a new basis, independent of the priesthood. They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows (Ḥag. i. 8; Tosef., i.). http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees BTW, here is a good page on New Testament Use of the Old Testamenthttp://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.html

Now lets see, where was that piece of html in my rushed reply hours ago? Must be hiding the preview button!

As i cannot find what made FR think it was html, i will repost it using html, slightly edited.

Praise God for what is good and for your encouragement, as such replies do take time, but it is all by God's grace, and may He be glorified, Both myself and others are edified, though it does take time to read through them.

Your statements as to the reception and effect are warranted. It is good to know that the N.T. church did believe that the O.T. taught that Jesus was the Son of God, etc., and it abundantly references to the Scriptures as the assured word of God, by which their own preaching was substantiated, and manifests its supremacy over those who presume, like the Jewish magisterium, more authority than what is written. (1Cor. 4:6)

For the decision of their Scribes, or "Soferim" (Josephus, σοπισταί; N. T., γραμματεἴς), consisting originally of Aaronites, Levites, and common Israelites, they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error (Sifre, Deut. 153-154); they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times (see Abrogation of Laws), and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death (Ber. 4a). By dint of this authority, claimed to be divine (R. H. 25a), they put the entire calendric system upon a new basis, independent of the priesthood. They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows (Ḥag. i. 8; Tosef., i.). — http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees

BTW, here is a good page on New Testament Use of the Old Testament: http://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.html

Thank you for that great link. I have "Favorited" it as I know it will come in handy for future discussions. I thought the following was interesting:

It is to be noted that the whole New Testament contains not even one explicit citation of any of the Old Testament Apocrypha which are considered as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. This omission can scarcely be viewed as accidental.

I agree that it IS worth noting that such an omission cannot be by accident. Jesus as well as the writers of the New Testament demonstrated complete familiarity with the Old Testament scriptures and that was because God is the same author behind them all. It is another way that He chose to confirm His word AS His word and it proves that those books added to the OT canon that had NOT ever been reckoned AS divinely-inspired had NO place along side them. As Jerome and others stated, they may be "useful", but not for doctrines of the faith. Thank you again for a useful and helpful link.

That wholesale omission of explicit citations from apocryphal books may be contended against, but which omissions do not itself exclude the canonicity of a book, for as that worthy page reports (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.html) the N.T. fails to explicitly refer to 6 O.T. books (according to the Hebrew reckoning of the Canon) .

Nor do apparent references or allusions to texts in some apocryphal books* establish their plenary Divine inspirations, as both the O.T. and N.T. quotes from books (and even from pagans) which neither RCs or Prots hold as Scripture (Jude 1:14,15 Enoch 1:9).

And if pagan sayings can be quoted from** or alluded to (and we ourselves may sometimes quote a maxim or truth from the lost) as well as from extraBiblical books (though the Ethiopian and the Eritrean Orthodox Churches hold Enoch - with its 40 or 400 foot men - as Scripture), then it can certainly quote or reference apocryphal books without affirming canonical status to them.

And as noted before, it was a practice before Trent, and even in early Protestant books, to include the apocryphal books as a type of “second canon,” which is what “Deuterocanonical” means, sanctioned for reading but not for doctrine.

However, what is missing from references to apocryphal books is the type of affirmation of Divine authorship seen in “it is written” references, which the Lord used in quoting from Scripture (rather than relying on amorphous tradition) in countering the devil who also did the same, and which is the context of the Lord’s mandating that man live by every word of God.

And while we must allow that there are true sayings such as “a stitch in time saves nine” outside Scripture, this does not infer plenary inspiration, and none may fail to conflate with Scripture, nor be the basis for doctrine.

And as can be deduced from Scripture, books were established as being Divine due to their enduring Heavenly qualities, (Ps. 16:7-11; 119, etc) and Divine attestation, (Heb. 2:3,4) without official decree (which, while expected, is not essentially the basis for authenticity of men of God either).

And thus, as with true men of God, in time the wheat was separated from the chaff, and the establishment of the 66 books as Divine has been due to these qualities and attestation, seen in their enduring and unconstrained historical popularity among those who believe the gospel, while the apocryphal books remain in relative obscurity, and would be even more so if their (sparse) reading was not mandated by their church in her services.

*Some texts from apocryphal books may be referenced or alluded to in the N.T. such as Mt. 6:7; Sir. 7:14 | Mt 23:37; 4 Ez 1:30 | Lk. 6:31; Tob 4:15 | Rom 9:21; Wis 15:7 | Rom 11:34; Wis 9:13; Isa. 40:13; Jer. 23:18 | 2Cor 9:7;Sir 35:9; Exo. 25:2; | Heb 1:3; Wis 7:26; though most such assertions are a stretch, or are found in universal canonical O.T. books.

**Acts 17:28 – Epimenides: “in him we live and move and have our being” found in the poem Cretica written by Epimenides, + Aratus: “We are his offspring,” a direct quote from the Stoic thinker Aratus in Phainomena 5
Acts 26:14 – “It is hard for you to kick against the pricks,” a line from a play by Aeschylus in [Agamemnon 1624;
1 Cor. 15:33 [Prov. 9:6, 13:20] – claimed to be taken from Euripedes play, Aiolos (“Bad company ruins good morals”), and probably Menander
Titus 1:12 “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. “ – Epimenides

crazy few days at the office, but i just had a chance to read your post and have a few comments:

1. same old, same old. the style seems to be to make up for lack of content with lots of words. well at least there are no 108 word, 10 comma sentences!
2.some mistake fidelity to orthodox, historical Christianity as “insolent and arrogant” so be it.
3. the fact remains that the Protestants in the 16th century removed books from the Bible they received when they were still Catholic. the Church did not add books to the Bible in response to the “Reformers”.
4. the fact remains NO 66 BOOK BIBLE EXISTED BEFORE THE 16TH CENTURY. St Jerome was a great scholar, but he did not substitute his private judgement for the judgement of the Catholic Church. Christians have always understood the unity of faith that Jesus and Paul commanded.
5. the unbelieving Jews who have the 39 book OT were not led by the Holy Spirit to all truth. the Church, which did have the Holy Spirit leading it to all truth, had the correct OT canon. why would anyone follow the judgement of those who reject Jesus as opposed to those who proclaim Jesus as Lord?
6.many times more can be gleaned from what is not said, rather than what is said. this is true of your post. no appeal is made to any 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th century non-Catholics. hmmm, why not? why are only Catholic Church Fathers who believed in baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist mentioned? the answer is obvious.
7. the post shows throughout it’s 2,000 year history, Catholics have disagreed on various theoligical questions, DUH!!
8. you missed the point completely on the eunuch, Philip and SS. there is not any OT verse that Philip could point to that says Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. of course the OT speaks of and points to Jesus, but in types and shadows. Philip was bringing new doctrine to the eunuch not contained in the OT and the eunuch believed it. if he followed SS, he would have rejected this doctrine. none of the Apostles believed or practiced SS, and that’s why the Church has never accepted either.
9. if the NT is clear about any doctrine, baptismal regeneration is it. there is a reason no one disputed this doctrine for 1,500 years, the NT teaches we ARE SAVED BY BAPTISM. ( 1 Peter 3:21 ) the NT never speaks of baptism as symbolic ( like the silly Baptist ring analogy )or as a first act of obedience or as an outward display of something that has happened inwardly already. NO SCRIPTURES EXIST SAYING THESE THINGS ABOUT BAPTISM. this is Baptist myth making. the Scriptures say Baptism is for the remission of sins, for being baptized into Christ, for saving us. I guess Baptists don’t realize types and shadows were pointing to Christ, once Christ came, THERE IS NO NEED FOR TYPES AND SHADOWS.
10. Baptists love to point to two instances in the NT to try and disprove baptismal regeneration. one, the thief on the cross - that is an east one since the thief died before Mattthew 28 where Jesus COMMANDS AND AUTHORIZES THE CHURCH TO BAPTIZE. the second is a little tougher, Acts 10. was Cornelius regenerated before his baptism because he received the Holy Spirit? the first point that must be made is the story a miracle the Holy Spirit performed to show Peter the Gospel is for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. o this was an extraordinary event, not to be repeated today. and indeed, the Holy Spirit does not fall on anyone today and give them the gfit of tongues. that said, a careful reading of Acts 10:44 and 11:15 shows the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard Peter. Cornelius and his family and friends did not express faith in Jesus or repent PRIOR to receiving the gift of tongues. this was the very same gift the Apostles received in Acts 2. Cornelius still needed to be baptized for the remission of sins as Luke shows in Acts 2:38 and 22:16. Baptists need to read Acts 10 and 11 carefully instead of reading their preconceived notions into the Scriptures.
11.the fruit of SS is a playground for the devil to sow confusion and force the Church to defend 2,000 year old doctrines, rather than exhibiting the ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM AND ONE BREAD THAT JESUS SAID WOULD RESULT IN THE WORLD KNOWING HE WAS SENT BY THE FATHER. what a shame.

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 ....

so if what you said above is true, then Justin, Jerome, Augustine, Athanasius, Irenaeus,Origen, Tertullian and Ignatius were all “false” teachers that didn’t bother with Scripture when it comes to baptismal regeneration? you find something in the Scriptures that no one else saw for 16 centuries by praying and thinking the Holy Spirit is leading you to truth? If that is true, He led no one into the truth for 16 centuries, does that make sense to you?
SUCH ARROGANCE IS ASTOUNDING! But the Scriptures says there will come a time when people will reject sound doctrine and believe false teachings.........

no Trinity and Sabbath keeper? i never heard of a Seventh Day Jehovah Witness before!

so if what you said above is true, then Justin, Jerome, Augustine, Athanasius, Irenaeus,Origen, Tertullian and Ignatius were all “false” teachers that didn’t bother with Scripture when it comes to baptismal regeneration? you find something in the Scriptures that no one else saw for 16 centuries by praying and thinking the Holy Spirit is leading you to truth? If that is true, He led no one into the truth for 16 centuries, does that make sense to you? SUCH ARROGANCE IS ASTOUNDING! But the Scriptures says there will come a time when people will reject sound doctrine and believe false teachings.........

Uh, go back and check up on those supposed church "fathers" you mentioned. At some point in time, a few no longer counted as such because whoever was in power at the time determined they were heretics about something or other. The "arrogance that is astounding!" is that you continue to interpret the interpreters of Scripture and then complain when others don't see things as you do.

On this very simple matter of baptism - the ONE issue that is harped on most - you are taking what Scripture says and then predetermining what it MUST mean without taking other Scriptures into consideration. Rather than sticking to one doctrine, you must find ways to allow wiggle room when it is shown in Scripture that people WERE saved BEFORE they got water baptized. And no matter how many times you say it, it will still be true that there are OTHER baptisms in Scripture than the ordinance of water baptism. You have been shown this more times than I can remember, but here you are again harping like you never heard of such a thing.

Look, I get it that you want to protect the integrity of your Roman Catholic religion but, at some point, it starts to look mighty desperate. Your meager attempts to bully and berate those who do not hold to your view of things - about EVERYTHING - does nothing but reconfirm that your religion allows liberty in minor issues ONLY to those who are Roman Catholic. If it is a non-Catholic, then no such liberty is permitted and, even where your religion has failed to make decisive statements about certain points, people like you come on the forums to demand your way is the ONLY right way yet you have no Scripture to back it up with.

Here's a newsflash...you don't get to tell other Christians what they MUST believe or HAVE TO believe. That is what God gave us His Holy Spirit for along with His sacred Scriptures, which He says He will illuminate the truth for all those who earnestly seek Him. Second newsflash...whatever someone believes about water baptism has NO bearing on whether or not they are saved. That comes through faith in Jesus Christ - a faith that trusts in God's promise of eternal life to all those who believe in Christ. That little hobbyhorse of BAPTISM sure seems to be your only reason for coming to these threads - yet even you will have to admit that being baptized CANNOT make a person saved if they do not have faith first. When there are exceptions - and there are plenty on this issue - then no hard and fast "rule" can be in place.

he spins a new story each time. The practise of taqqiyyaa

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 ....

You do??? You didn't seem to know a thing about the very scriptural Abraham's bosom...

so if what you said above is true, then Justin, Jerome, Augustine, Athanasius, Irenaeus,Origen, Tertullian and Ignatius were all “false” teachers that didn’t bother with Scripture when it comes to baptismal regeneration?

Most if not all of these people you mention have written things that are clearly in support of Sola Scripture and without any reference to your religion, while at the same time, the same authors appear to have written things which are pro-Catholic...

A little unusual that these authors could and would pen things which are Pro Catholic and anti Catholic in the same writings...

One might suggest that most all of these writings contain a certain amount of forgery...

And since the Catholic religion has always had physical control over these writings, well, you get the picture...

you find something in the Scriptures that no one else saw for 16 centuries by praying and thinking the Holy Spirit is leading you to truth? If that is true, He led no one into the truth for 16 centuries, does that make sense to you?

You seem to want to pretend that there was no anti Catholic religion out there thruout the Dark Ages...But we know better, don't we...

So do you know when people began to see the 'Rapture' and 'dispensationalism, and 'spiritual baptism' in the scriptures???

People started to see these things when the scriptures were translated into the languages of the people...

None of this stuff was invented in the 16th Century...It was 'revealed' to the masses in the 16th Century...

he spins a new story each time. The practise of taqqiyyaa

You seem to have some pretty close ties to that religion...That's muzlimeze, isn't it???

Hey, you're the guy who flat out denied that God chose the Gentiles for adoption into his kingdom to make the Jews jealous...

You went into hiding after I posted the words of God that again, proved you wrong...

Good to see you back...

uh contraire, it is only the historical, orthodox Christian Faith that can harmonize all the Scriptures relating to regeneration and baptism ( i prefer to use the Scriptural term “baptism”, as opposed to the man made phrase of “water baptism” ) as far as “harping on it”, well i guess i am guilty as charged since regeneration is a critical doctrine, i think you would agree.
as far as many baptisms in the Scriptures, the Bible only knows ONE BAPTISM after Pentecost. the OT washings were types and shadows pointing to the Christian baptism commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28 and preached by Peter in Acts 2.
the historical, orthodox Catholic Faith believed by EVERYONE for 1,500 years is that we are SAVED by baptism, since in it, we have our sins remitted, we receive the Holy Spirit and we are placed into Christ. the Bible is quite clear on this and it is the Faith the Church received from the Apostles.
now, no one denies you have the “liberty” to believe whatever you want, just as the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists have the same “liberty” to believe what they want. i am merely pointing out the Baptist doctrine of baptism as a first act of obedience and as a useless ceremony that shows outwardly a picture of what has happened inwardly already is not only not Scriptural, it is completely opposite to what the Church has ALWAYS believed as evidenced by Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine, etc. etc.
we both agree ( i think ) that it is the Holy Spirit who leads to a correct understanding of God, the natural man CAN’T UNDERSTAND THE SPIRITUAL, SINCE THEY ARE FOLLY TO HIM.
that said, for your position to be correct, one must believe that these “men” listed above were NOT led by the Holy Spirit into a correct understanding of baptism. Indeed, you MUST BELIEVE NO ONE UNDERSTOOD BAPTISM BETWEEN 95 AD AND THE 16TH CENTURY. oky doky, if that’s your position, i know i don’t get to tell you what you MUST believe or HAVE TO believe.
I just know that i want to follow ALL THE BIBLE and keep the Apostolic Faith believed by the Church for 2,000 years.
this is pleasing to the Father, since it is His will all TRUE believers in His Son have a visible and REAL UNITY of doctrine and there be NO dissension in the Church.
scoffers can call it a “hobbyhorse”, i call it sound doctrine.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery