Posted on 04/14/2005 12:00:51 PM PDT by Dean Baker
Which is why our Lord gave is His Church before He gave us the completed canon of Scripture.
BTW, it's not my organization, it's His.
nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos
NIV 1 Corinthians 14:5-28
5. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.
6. Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?
7. Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes?
8. Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?
9. So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
10. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning.
11. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me.
12. So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.
13. For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.
14. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
15. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.
16. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?
17. You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
18. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.
19. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
20. Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.
21. In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.
22. Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.
23. So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
24. But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all,
25. and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"
26. What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.
27. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.
28. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
(I would tend to think the sames rule would apply to someone who posts in a tongue, as well.)
Whereas I trust Him.
The first two definitions should be illustrative enough.
mys·ti·cal adj.
1. Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses.
2. Of, relating to, or stemming from direct communion with ultimate reality or God: a mystical religion.
(BTW, I never implied it WASN'T the body Christ - just not the way the RCC uses it.
It's the BELIEVERS who are 'the church', NOT the organizational higherarchy.)
So the bishops, priests, and decons are not believers? The organizational higherarchy is part of the body, in the same sense that my nervous system, cerebral cortex, and cardiovascular system are part of my body.
following up... A body is an entity that performs acts and functions. These cannot be achieved sans some organizational system.
I know exactly what to do with them: believe them!
the church fathers are who exactly?
That is a rather open-ended question. Let me refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on that subject. Click here.
Remember, I told you that I am one of those who view the Bible as the sole rule of faith.
I understand. It may be helpful for us to focus our discussion. What I am challenging is precisely 'sola scriptura'. There are very good reasons to believe that 'sola scriptura' is false. I have discussed some of them earlier in this thread. I have also mentioned Robert Sungenis's book Not by Scripture Alone. Sugensis defends the Catholic position. On the other side of the issue, you can read John White's Scripture Alone, Don Kistler's Sola Scriptura, Keith Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura, and William Webster's Holy Scripture. If you would like to read any of these, and discuss them here, I'd be glad to do so.
And so the fact that only believers are baptised in scriptures is not persuasive?
You don't know that for sure. Paul baptized the "household of Stephanas" (1 Cor 1:16), and household of Lydia (Acts 16), and the family of the jailer in Philippi (Acts 16). Presumably, baptizing households and families was commonplace. So, it is quite possible that the children were baptized as well.
All believers are in heaven.
How do you know that? (I take it you mean that everyone who died in a believing state is in heaven.)
Not all those who are in heaven have been baptised.
Not if what Christ says about baptism is true. "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5).
Not everyone who has been baptised is in heaven.
That is perfectly compatible with Catholic theology.
There is no precedent in scripture for the Bishop of Rome to exercise authority over any other church.
Precedent? Christ gives the keys to Peter. Christ clearly makes Peter the chief of the Apostles. Of the twelve Apostles, he is the official, designated leader. Christ prayrs for Peter in a unique way, and commands Him to strengthen his brethren. Peter is the first man to whom the resurrected Christ appears. And I could go on and on. Now, the authority of a bishop depends upon the authority of the one who ordains him. If the one who 'ordains' him lacks the authority to do so, then the ordination is invalid. Otherwise, any Joe Blow could just ordain anyone he wanted. (Sadly, we see that sort of thing all the time in the tv evangelists.) So, the authority of the bishops ordained by the Apostles, in all the cities to which the Apostles travelled, depended upon the authority of the Apostles. Therefore, since Peter's authority was greater than the authority of the other Apostles, as explained above, the authority of the bishop appointed by Peter is greater than that of the other bishops. Otherwise, as I pointed out earlier, the keys would cease to exist when Peter died.
But the fact that Scripture does not spell all this out in detail is not a problem unless you hold to 'sola scriptura'. (Though, 'sola scriptura' people usually believe in the Trinity and the creeds, etc., even though they are not spelled out in detail in the Scriptures.
There is the remaining question of how do you know when an utterance by Christ is literal or figurative?
The authority of the Church has the final say on the interpretation of Scripture. Just as Peter and the Apostles had the final say on the interpretation of the OT during the days of the early Church.
Having said that, there are literary ways to determine when a person is speaking figuratively or literally, though this takes some exegetically training, and I can't go into it here.
There is also the unanswered question of where, in scripture, is authority to only a few to understand scripture while the laymen shouldn't worry their pretty little heads.
Again, your question, "where in scripture ..." is based on 'sola scriptura'. But 'sola scriptura' is false. I myself used to be a strong proponent of sola scriptura. So, I understand your question, and where you are coming from. The worn out cliche "paradigm shift" is highly applicable here. There is no way to go from 'sola scriptura' to 'sola ecclesia' on the basis of sola scriptura. Logically, that it impossible. It is like yelling loudly, "I AM NOT YELLING!" You have to think about Church history, and how the Bible even came about, and how the early Christians functioned before the Scriptures were even written down. Then, in that context, you see that 'sola ecclesia' makes sense, and 'sola scritura' makes no sense. For 1500 years, people didn't have 'personal' Bibles. So, the 'sola scriptura' teaching requires you to believe that the Church was left in the lurch for 1500 years. And that requires you to believe that Christ completely blew it in His promise to guide His Church into all truth. It is that same deistic notion that allows Mormons to claim that the Gospel was lost for 1800 years, until it was recovered by Joseph Smith. The Evangelical and the Mormon are both deists in that sense, i.e. regarding Christ's promised care of His Church.
And speaking of scripture and understanding it, which is more authoritative - scripture or the writings of the church fathers?
First, let us be clear that both of these are the property of the Church, as guardian, steward, and expositer. But Scripture is greater in authority than any Church Father, because the authority of the Fathers comes from the Apostles. And yet, we are to read and understand the Scriptures through the light and teaching of the Fathers, for their authority does not diminish because they are now in glory and we remain yet on Earth.
I won't quibble with your brief summary of the Fathers' positions on infant baptism. There are many websites that list numerous quotations.
Here are a few quotations:
In 244 AD, Origen (in cap. vi, Ep. ad Rom.) declares: "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants".
Around that same year (244 AD) Origen writes, "Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." (Homily on Leviticus,8:3)
In 251 AD St. Cyprian (Ep. ad Fidum) writes: "From baptism and from grace . . . must not be kept the infant who, because recently born, has committed no sin, except, inasmuch as it was born carnally from Adam, it has contracted the contagion of the ancient death in its first nativity; and it comes to receive the remission of sins more easily on this very account that not its own, but another's sins are forgiven it." There also he writes, "But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.." St. Cyprian also points out that the Council of Carthage in 253 rejected the notion that the baptism of infants should be delayed until the eighth day.
In 387 AD, St. Ambrose writes, "'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity." (Abraham,2,11:79)
St. Augustine (Serm. xi, De Verb Apost.) says of infant baptism: "This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end."
In 412 AD Augustine writes, "Now, seeing that they [Pelagians] admit the necessity of baptizing infants,--finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles,--they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. But from what, if not from death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and darkness of sin? And, inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy by their actual transgression, original sin only is left." (On forgiveness of sin, and baptism,39[26])
(The Pelagians were a heretical group that denied original sin. Augustine refutes them here by showing that even the Pelagians practiced infant baptism.)
In 416, the Council of Milevis anathematized anyone who claimed that infants should not be baptized.
But this history is only useful. It is not necessary with the previous examples of scripture where only believers are baptised.
Only if 'sola scritura' is true. So, I hope see (even if we disagree about 'sola scriptura') that some much comes down to 'sola scriptura'. If 'sola scriptura' is not true, then the paucity of information about infant baptism in Scripture is completely irrelevant to whether it should or should not be practiced by Christians. At the very least, can you admit that faith/belief is more important than baptism?
I'm open to the possibility, but offhand I don't know any reason (for sure) to agree that faith is more important than baptism.
And someday maybe we'll get back to that catechism which started our whole dialog?
Gladly! Peace.
-A8
Yes, you are. You just don't realize it. You could quote the whole Bible, if you wish. That doesn't make you a trained exegete, theologian, or Church authority.
-A8
He said, "YOU will build my Church"
Have you ever heard of an argument from silence? That's what this is. And arguments from silence are fallacious.
Christ's building His Church is fully compatible with Peter being the rock upon which Christ builds His Church, and fully compatible with Peter doing his part to build the Church too, and fully compatible with all the Apostles, and all the bishops, and all Christians doing their part to build the Church too.
-A8
It is a fair question. But the distinguishing mark of the Church is not the degree to which she preaches judgment, though such preaching is surely important and appropriate in the right contexts. The true Church is distinguished by being the "unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam".
-A8
Whereas I trust Him.
There is no trusting Christ without trusting His Church. There is no loving Christ without loving His Church. There is no serving Christ without serving His Church.
Gnostics worship the spiritual and despise the material. But Christ is incarnate, and likewise His Church (His mystical body) is material and visible. We cannot in fact choose between trusting Christ and trusting His Church. The two necessarily go together.
-A8
Look at Matthew 16; Christ will build His Church. Or Eph 5:23 Christ is the head of the Church. Or 1 Tim 3:15, where Paul writes of "the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth". Or Col 1:18, "And he is the head of the body, the Church". When you say "there was only one church that needed leadership", you suggest that eventually there were other Churches. But there is always only one Church, spread out in space and time. So if the one Church needed leadership after Christ's ascension, then that same one Church still needs the same leadership today, i.e. someone sitting in the seat of Peter.
You seem to forget the keys, which were given to Peter. Peter was not the leader simply because there was a leadership vacuum somewhere. Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the keys of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Jesus didn't just give to Peter the keys to the Jerusalem parish, or the parish in Rome. He gave to Peter the keys to the Church.
Just think about what that means, Christ giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Eventually it will sink in.
But we don't hear of him [Peter] doing much outside of Jerusalem.
Only if you don't read the Fathers. If you read the Fathers, you will learn more about what Peter did. For a bit more, see my post #1283.
Also, regarding infant baptism, all those secondary sources you are using are trumped by the *primary* sources I quoted. And the primary sources you do use are mostly irrelevant, because they simply do not address the issue of infant baptism. But the whole point is moot once the authority of the Church has been determined.
-A8
So just what IS it, that a human cannot 'sense' about Jesus?
|
Is Peter the 'rock'?
As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....
NIV 1 Corinthians 10:4
4. and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. NIV Luke 6:48
48. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. NIV Romans 9:33
33. As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." NIV 1 Peter 2:4-8
4. As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5. you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 7. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, " 8. and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for. But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS??? NIV Genesis 49:24-25 24. But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, 25. because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb. NIV Numbers 20:8
8. "Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
4. He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
15. Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior. NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
18. You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
30. How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up? 31. For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede. NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
2. "There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
2. He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 3. my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me. NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
32. For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
47. "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
3. The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God, 4. he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.' NIV Psalms 18:2
2. The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. NIV Psalms 18:31
31. For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV Psalms 18:46
46. The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! NIV Psalms 19:14
14. May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. NIV Psalms 28:1
1. To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
NIV Psalms 31:2-3
2. Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me. 3. Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me. NIV Psalms 42:9
9. I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?" NIV Psalms 62:2
2. He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:6
6. He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:7
7. My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge. NIV Psalms 71:3
3. Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress. NIV Psalms 78:35
35. They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. NIV Psalms 89:26
26. He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' NIV Psalms 92:14-15
14. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, 15. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him." NIV Psalms 95:1
1. Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. NIV Psalms 144:1
1. Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. NIV Isaiah 17:10
10. You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress. NIV Isaiah 26:4
4. Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. NIV Isaiah 30:29
29. And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel. NIV Isaiah 44:8
8. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." NIV Habakkuk 1:12 12. O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish. |
Since taking the Father's words on THIS would be circular logic, surely you have a verse to point to for it.
I submit that the politically correct vulgar interpretations are a factor in the larger societal issue: the split Christian vote. "Concupiscence" and "fornication" have been stricken from your translation because of their powerful and suscinct definitions. Verbicidal translations use the anomalous words "sin" and "immorality." Since "sin" and "immorality" are relative terms, vice the absolute terms "concupiscence" and "fornication," the scripture now becomes open to relativistic interpretation vice the absolute meaning and intent. This wishy-washy language enables the liberal Christian crowd claims to be faithful and pro-abortion.
We wouldn't trust repeated rewritting of the US Constitution to maintain true integrity, so neither should we trust repeated rewriting and translation of scripture. I say go to the source.
No, you trust your version of Him. Not the same thing.
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.