About Michael O`Flaherty (Expert=8663) Expertise Did you know that the Bible does talk about the concept of the trinity? Did you know that Jesus did claim to be God, and that unless He washes you, you will not get into heaven? If you want a spirited debate about your beliefs in relation to the Bible, please ask. I will warn you; you might be challenged. Friendly debate only!
Expert: Michael O`Flaherty (Expert=8663) - 11/29/2005
Question Dear Michael
Thanks for your swift response,I agree with a lot of what you said.
allow me to follow up.
The first half of this email will be a clarification of questions and the second half I will be explain aspects of the Catholic Church you mentioned.
Overall I think You answered about 50% of my questions but perhaps I didnt ask them well, so I will rewrite them more fully here.
1. If three men claim to have the Holy spirt, and all disagree on an issue in the Bible. Who decides which person is correct, if any?
2 We see in scripture, that Our Lord founded and the apostles spread one church. This Chuch was without division and rejected anyone who was divisive in the Churh. (John 17:22, 1 Cor 1:10, Titus 3:10)
This Church was also a living physical Church as we see in Matt 18:15-17,
When the people are told to bring a brother that sins against them to the Church and the Church will decide what to do with him.
This Church also has a hierarcy (Ephesians 4:11), "And He appointed Himself and gave some to be apostles, some prophets some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers."
And this Church was sent the Holy Spirit at Pentacost, Acts chapter 2.
And Jesus said the Gates of Hades(Hell) would net prevail against his church. Matt 16:18 ensuring that This church would not apostate or mislead the faithful.
So Micheal, where is this one, united, Holy(because of pentacost), Church that was started by the Apostles and Our Lord.?
3. Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition and the Bible, While you say you believe in the Bible alone. Where in the Bible does it say to believe in the Bible alone?
...
The second half of this email I will respond to some other things you mentioned.
You said,
"(t)he only way to receive the Holy Spirit is to repent and be baptized into Jesus. There is no other way in scripture that I am aware of."
What about Acts 8:15-17 Here we read of men who had been baptized and only recieved the Holy Spirt when the Apostles laid hands on them.
Also Acts, 9:17, 19:6 and Hebrews 6:2
(We call this confirmation)
You said,
"I will state that God wants you and me to enter a direct relationship with him. That is why the Bible was written in a common language. We do not need a priest, bishop, pope, elder, saint, or deacon to explain God's word or to tell us how to live."
Michael,this seems contrary to the bible, you will find that we ought to obey God, the Gospel (Rom. 10:16), and the teaching of the apostles (Phi. 2:12, 2Th. 3:14). Children are to obey their parents and servants their masters (Eph 6.1, 5). Are believers to "obey" church leaders? If they are, the New Testament doesn't say so.
But not so fast-what about the text in Hebrews 13:17 which says "obey your leaders?" This text is interesting, because it gives us an insight into the positive side of the New Testament's understanding of leadership.
WE NEED TO take our ideas of leadership in the church from the New Testament and not from the world. Thus, we should begin not with a worldly concept of authority.
Its also intresting you say you do not accept Authority when if fact you already have, let me explain
In the early Church there were many letters being past around the Churhes, not only the 27 letters of the now accepted New Testaent but other letters such as ,The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas The Book of Clement The Epistles of Ignatius, These men were all early Christian writers and all of these were circulated in such a way as that some regarded them as scriptural. Others didn't. The Church had to decide what is and what wasnt inspired. Some Letters such as 1 Corinithians and 2 Timothy seem obviously inspired by God. But tell me what is so obvious in Philemon to indicate that it is inspired? And what is so obviously unorthodox in The Shepherd or the Didache or Clement's letter or any of the other first-and second-century Christian writings?
It was just because of this confusion that the Church eventually decided to define what was and wasn't the Inspired Word of God. Which was completed in 397 AD.
>So it was the Catholic Church, the Pope and
>Bishops, with the guidence of the Holy Spirit who decided what 27 letters would and would not make up the New Testament.
>
> If one believes in the authenticity of the Bible, It
>therefore logically and really means that they have accepted the Authority
>of the Catholic Church, Popes and Bishops (whether they like it or not). For it was though
>this Church that came the Bible as you and I know it today.
>
> If I did not trust in the Authority of the Catholic Church it would
>follow that I would be morally obligated to reject the New testament.
>
> But as I do believe in the 27 inspired letters of the New Testamet as decided with the guidence of the Holy Spirit by the Pope and Bishops of the
>Catholic Church in the 4th century. It does then make sense that The Holy Spirt is working in this Church.
You say,"Our church has Elders and Deacons, yes, but there is no centralized church authority to tell us how to think, act, etc."
We Catholics are not told how to think or act either, however when it comes to doctrine, we are to be completely united as it is stated in the Bible 1 Cor 1:10. Complete unity is a fundamental aspect of the Church Christ founded.
And also you say there is no "centralized Authority"
The Bible shows a much different church than the one you describe.
Throughout the New Testament we read that Our Lord and the Apostles plead for complete unity among Christians (John 17:22 1 Cor 1:10) in regads to doctine and thought. And the Christians are to Reject ANY person who causes division (Titus 3:10). And nowhere in the Bible do we read that the Churches had differnet Doctrine or that division was to be accepted, We only see how they were unified
And these Churches had a Hierarchy, (as Catholics today still have)
That The Apostles began a Heirarchy among the churches is seen in Scripture.
1 Corinthians 12:28 - And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues.
Philippians 1:1 "Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons."
Acts reports that Paul appointed "elders" (presbyters) in his "churches"
ACTS 14:23 And after they had appointed elders (presbyters) for them in each church, with prayer and fasting they entrusted them to the Lord in whom they had come to believe.
Michael, some Modern Churches today dont even claim to have bishops.
Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called "evangelists" in the New Testament. More Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).
Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as "presbyters" or "elders." In fact, the English term "priest" is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).
Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).
and Peter, at the top of this Heirachy structure
Catholics,indeed claim Peter was made the spiritual leader of the Earthy Church when our Lord said to him in Matthew 16:18-19 You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades (Hell) will not prevail against it and I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" (notice here, Ron, the keys are given directly to Peter.)
Also note that Jesus could have given Simon any name he wanted, but He chose Peter (meaning Rock). Surely you see the symbolism in the name Our Lord gave to Him. Peter is the Rock as shown by the Name Christ gave him.
Peter's rise to leadership in the New testament cannot be mistaken.
First we see in Acts 1:15 It is Peter who stands up among the 220 present and declares that another man will fill Judas's vacant place among the apostles, and everyone then listens and does as he says without objection.(Here begins apostlic succession, when one apostle dies another takes his place, a process that has not ceased,you may remember Bendict the XVI being voted to succeed the late John Paul II last spring)
Then you go on in chapter 3, we see Peter's second sermon. We also see that Peter is the instrument by which the first real healing miracle occurs, the lame man in the temple in Jerusalem in the portico called Solomon, I should say.
Then in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira, two wealthy members of the Church, sell some land and then lie about how much money they gave to the Church. Peter said to Ananias, "What are you doing?" Ananias says, "Well I gave you all the money." And Peter says, "You are lying to the Holy Spirit." Ananias said, "No, I'm just lying to you, Peter." But no. In lying to Peter, Ananias was lying to the Holy Spirit and to the Church. He's struck dead! A few hours later his wife Sapphira comes along. Peter says, "What happened?" "Oh, we sold the land for this amount, and we gave you all the money." And, "Hark, the footsteps of the men who just carried out your husband are coming for you." She drops dead! "And great fear came upon all those who heard of it," in verse 5
In chapter 15. We have the famous Council of Jerusalem where there's a huge debate tearing apart the Church. These Gentile believers, do we circumcise them or not? As the debate is raging, all of a sudden it stops. When? Verse 6 and 7, "The Apostles and elders met together. After much debate Peter stood up and addressed them," and he basically says the Holy Spirit purified their hearts through Baptism, circumcision isn't needed; end all debate! The only thing that follows is that James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, adds the kind of qualifying proviso so that the Jews are not needlessly scandalized in Gentile lands. But Peter's word was final and absolute. The debate ended. Peter had spoken. www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
You said,
"Where you and I may part company is in regards to baptism. For example, I do not believe that a child can repent, nor can parents repent for them, etc. I also do not see anywhere in scripture where children were baptized, or where they were sprinkled, etc. These are traditions and changes made by man"
Baptism of Children
Of Course a child has not sinned but a child (as all of us has the stain of Original sin(Adam and Eve) and by baptism the child is also officaially brought into the church.
Also remember the Jews, they were brought into their faith officailly with circumcison on the eigth day of life.
They did (and do) not wait until they are old enough and then decide if they want to be Jewish.
And in the Early Church as early as 70 AD (written in "The Didache"). Pouring water over the one to be baptised (when a river or lake was not accesable) we perfectly acceptable. Imagine desert people who do not have access to an immersion Baptism. Or when one is on his deathbed and wishes to be baptised
And in the Catholic Church today, one can if he wishes be baptised by full imersion, if he wishes
Jesus calls all to Baptism
Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul's preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit
But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.
It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible's strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism's idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church's teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).
We hold to the Teachings of the First Christians
Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.
Irenaeus 190 AD
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan' [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Hippolytus 215AD
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
(You can read all early christian writings at www.earlychristinwritings.com or www.newadvet.org/fathers/ )
One thing to note is there are No writings contrary to Baptising Children in the Early Church. (if this was an unacceptable practice there would be at least one contrary writing but there arent any.
www.catholic.com
Ok. Ive written alot, I look forward to your response to my questions
And ask me anything else
Peace be with you
Jeff Myers OR USA
Ps. Here is three quotes of my favorite quotes, 2 by Martin Luter
“If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” KJ NIV
St. Paul
1 Timothy 3:15
“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”
Martin Luther
“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”
Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519
more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses
quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
Dear Michael,
May I ask you questions about the faith? I am a Roman Catholic. I will be respectful, and I hope to ask my questions with charity, please do not take offense if I word anything stongly, as I always try to get to the heart of any particular issue.
As I think it is benefical to ask many questions.
And truthfully most protostants cannot answer my very basic questions.
(also feel free to ask my anything)
By the way i dont need deep theological answers.
Just simply and straight forward responses. thanks
1.How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is correct?
Dont many claim to have the Holy Spirt but all teach many different ideas? The Holy spirit is not divided, so who has the fullness of faith? and who doesn't?
Is your interpretation of the Bible your own ideas, or do you recognize any authority in the Christian world.(of couse Jesus is the ultimate authority, I know)
Is your Church the one Our Lord founded?
As we know in Scripture that Our Lord founded one, united church, with bishops and deacons that rejected division?
Where does the Bible say to believe in the Bible alone? (2Tim 3:15 doesn't say this)
O.K tough questions but I seek sincere answers,
Peace be with you
Jeff Myers
Answer -
Hi Jeff!
Feel free to ask any question any time. There is not too much that would offend me, even if you were not being polite. That is why I serve on this web site. It is a shame that people get offended by questions, but I know that happens. The world has grown too PC.
My Father is a Roman Catholic, so I know a little about the faith. You won't get any responses that are deep or theological because I am not a theologian.
1. In my view, the truth does not get any truer-- only the interpretation of it. Better put, God does not change--ever. So ultimately what you and I discuss will depend greatly on how we view God's word and God's son Jesus. Though there are differences between the Bibles that we use, when it comes to the important portions (the NT for example), we will be very close in agreement as far as translation.
So to answer your question about the Spirit, I believe the Bible is very clear on how we receive the Holy Spirit. Jesus states that in order to enter heaven, we must be born of water and Spirit (John 3:5.) I believe that Peter understood exactly what being born of water and Spirit meant:
AC 2:37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call." 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
So to answer your question, . So when people claim to pray Jesus into their heart, or some other method, I just don't see that viewpoint expressed in scripture.
Where you and I may part company is in regards to baptism. For example, I do not believe that a child can repent, nor can parents repent for them, etc. I also do not see anywhere in scripture where children were baptized, or where they were sprinkled, etc. These are traditions and changes made by man. Regardless, that was not your question, but I want to make sure that if you agree that you must be baptized and repent, that you at least understand that from my perspective, you have to be willing to repent and also be immersed. Anything outside of that formula from scripture is not from God in my view.
So if someone asks me if they have the Holy Spirit, I just ask them if they have repented and have been baptized. If they answer no to either, then they do not have the Holy Spirit. It is a free gift, but one that we must ask for by being saved.
As far as how I know the Bible is correct, I can only tell you my perspective on that question. I believe that God is visible in creation, math, space, etc. So it did not take me long to figure out that there is a God. The question was which religion. So the more I studied Jesus, his life, his sacrifice, his mission, and above all, his love, it is clear to me that if God was going to reach out to us, it would be by that means. So I believe the Bible is the word of God. Besides, the Romans or the Jews could have produced a body and ended the whole thing right there. Since his enemies could not change history or dispel Jesus as a nice guy or a myth, and since there is non-Biblical references to him, I believe he died and was raised from the dead. That is why I believe.
I will state that God wants you and me to enter a direct relationship with him. That is why the Bible was written in a common language. We do not need a priest, bishop, pope, elder, saint, or deacon to explain God's word or to tell us how to live. So to answer your question, I do not have an earthly authority to interpret the Bible for me or tell me (or any person) how the run a church. God is very clear in the NT how we are to live and how the church is to be structured. That is why I do not attend a denominational church. Our church has Elders and Deacons, yes, but there is no centralized church authority to tell us how to think, act, etc. Our handbook is the Bible alone. Elders are responsible for shepherding the flock. Deacons are servants. Beyond that, there is no mention of a hierarchy other than apostles.
As far as whether the Bible is the final word, or there are other books, I do not believe we need anything beyond the Bible. That is why the NT is called the last will and testament. There is no need for additional written information from God. He gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us. It is hard for me to answer whether the Bible says there is nothing beyond the Bible because it was not formed until hundreds of years after Jesus' death. In fact, many people could not even read then (again, another reason why I believe God's word – it is the message which is simple to understand and doesn't require a degree to interpret.)
I hope I hit all of your topics. If I failed to answer any, please ask. Like I said, the truth does not get any truer, so I am always open to learning or discussing things further. Good people don't go to heaven—saved people do. So I pray that you are born again!
In Jesus Name!
Michael
www.oflaherty.com/mo.htm
Answer Hi!
First off, I will try my best to address everything. There is a lot of ground to cover.
*********** 1. If three men claim to have the Holy Spirit, and all disagree on an issue in the Bible. Who decides which person is correct, if any?
I would say that God does. Just because someone claims to have the Holy Spirit does not mean they do. If in your example that all three individuals disagree but are saved, then my question is whether it is a spiritual matter (which I believe you are inferring.) Paul states that there are differences within the brotherhood:
1CO 11:19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.
*********** 2 We see in scripture, that Our Lord founded and the apostles spread one church. This Church was without division and rejected anyone who was divisive in the Church. (John 17:22, 1 Cor 1:10, Titus 3:10)
You must be reading a different NT than I (ha!) For example, in the above verse, Paul was rebuking them for how they were handling communion. Here are a few more verses from that passage:
1CO 11:17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.
There are many places where the Epistles address issues and questions in the church. The Corinthian church was a mess, and so were some of the others. Look at Jesus' comments in Revelations. And the book of Acts describes the debate between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. Jesus prayed for unity, yes, but that does not mean they were unified. The church was founded by Jesus but entrusted to man. The early church was young, vibrant, and energized, but it also had issues to deal with. Specifically the blending in the culture around them, Gnosticism, and separation from its Jewish roots.
*********** 3 This Church was also a living physical Church as we see in Matt 18:15-17, When the people are told to bring a brother that sins against them to the Church and the Church will decide what to do with him.
Sure! But each church is autonomous. If you look at the Greek used here, the word is referring to the congregation (house church), not a priest or governing body. You are inferring that the church here is referring to its leaders and not the body.
*********** 4 This Church also has a hierarchy (Ephesians 4:11), "And He appointed Himself and gave some to be apostles, some prophets some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers."
Sure, so that leads to a question then. If that structure still exists today, where are the apostles, prophets, and gifts of the Holy Spirit? For example, the apostles healed the sick, raised the dead, speak in tongues, etc. If there are true apostles and prophets today, I do not know of any. People were empowered to raise the dead, heal the sick, drive out demons, speak in tongues, etc. So if you expect me to accept some sort of argument that the Pope is somehow an apostle, then I would like to know why *they* do not have the same characteristics as the Apostles in the NT.
*********** 5 And this Church was sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Acts chapter 2.
Agreed
*********** 6 And Jesus said the Gates of Hades(Hell) would net prevail against his church. Matt 16:18 ensuring that This church would not apostate or mislead the faithful.
I agree! The church that Jesus built is not a physical building. It is made up of born-again believers. It has nothing to do with tradition, statues, saints, grand buildings, pavement, pews, robes, monks, money, power, purgatory, mysticism, etc. It is an army of ambassadors who have sworn to live and die at Jesus' command. That is the church. It is made up of people who God asked to change sides in this great conflict. In exchange for allegiance to Jesus, God change his address by leaving the temple and moving into their hearts. In other words, he left that kind of legalism behind in the Jewish system.
*********** 7 So Michael, where is this one, united, Holy (because of Pentecost), Church that was started by the Apostles and Our Lord.
You can find them in the mission fields, hospitals, soup kitchens, and of course, the church. Many of them suffer and die for their views.
*********** 8 Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition and the Bible, While you say you believe in the Bible alone. Where in the Bible does it say to believe in the Bible alone?
Where does it say not to? There are many books that claim to be the word of God. I have read some of them (Gospel of Thomas, Mary, etc.) Though I would never say that God could not write or have man write another book to augment or replace the gospel, I don't believe that God needs to. It is the message that is important, and the Bible more than adequately tells us about Jesus, how to live, what sin is, how to be saved, and how to run a church. What are you driving at? Do you have some book that you claim is from God?
And Jesus was quick to condemn Jewish tradition in some cases because they placed that over what was right.
Today, there are all sorts of traditions that are not found in the NT. How do you evaluate such traditions? To call a tradition a sacred thing is a slippery slope. Some traditions not found in the NT are pews, buildings and mortgages, wafers and little drink cups, passing of the basket in front of non-Christians, robes, song books, singing with your face forward and not to each other, tithing, instruments and choirs in the church, burning incense, statues, rituals for the dead, and on and on and on. So to call any of these sacred is wrong in my view.
*********** 9 You said,
"(t)he only way to receive the Holy Spirit is to repent and be baptized into Jesus. There is no other way in scripture that I am aware of."
What about Acts 8:15-17 Here we read of men who had been baptized and only recieved the Holy Spirt when the Apostles laid hands on them.
Also Acts, 9:17, 19:6 and Hebrews 6:2
(We call this confirmation)
Yes, I was aware of this one. Sorry, my point was that in order to be saved, you must be born of water and Spirit. Peter understood this in Acts 2:38. What I believe about Acts 8 is that God did not want to shower these particular people with the Spirit (especially spiritual gifts) until the Apostles arrived. But that is my opinion. Regardless, these people were immersed and received the Holy Spirit.
*********** 10 You said,
"I will state that God wants you and me to enter a direct relationship with him. That is why the Bible was written in a common language. We do not need a priest, bishop, pope, elder, saint, or deacon to explain God's word or to tell us how to live."
Michael,this seems contrary to the bible, you will find that we ought to obey God, the Gospel (Rom. 10:16), and the teaching of the apostles (Phi.
2:12, 2Th. 3:14). Children are to obey their parents and servants their masters (Eph 6.1, 5). Are believers to "obey" church leaders? If they are, the New Testament doesn't say so.
But not so fast-what about the text in Hebrews 13:17 which says "obey your leaders?" This text is interesting, because it gives us an insight into the positive side of the New Testament's understanding of leadership.
Paul also states in Romans that we should obey civil authority too. My Spiritual leader is Jesus. My relationship is with God through Jesus. There are no other layers in that chain. He placed certain brothers in charge to sheppard the local church. There are Elders. I am subject to them in the since that I am a fellow brother and a member of their church they are responsible for. But these same Elders are my brothers too (equal in the scheme of things) and it is also my responsibility to hold their feet to the same fire. He did not, however, expect me to place my soul in their hands, or to subject my soul or spiritual allegiance to some man thousands of miles away. I am responsible for my own relationship with God. He does not want any man in-between or making Spiritual decisions for me. John tells me to “test all things” to see if they are from God. He did not tell the body to follow this or that man. Paul states it best:
1CO 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?
There is nothing positive about a top-down hierarchy like the one you are espousing. I say this because it only takes a little corruption to permeate then entire pyramid. I believe that the pyramid is inverted in God's church. The people are responsible for each other, and Elders are part of that same family. That is why we are to choose men among us who are respected at home and in the public eye. Even the Apostles in Acts did not choose the Deacons. They told the people to appoint them. There are plenty discussion points about Elders and Deacons in the NT, but no discussion about how one Elder from one church is in charge of another church somewhere else, or how they are to choose who is to serve. And like I said, I believe the Apostles and Prophets had their place in the hierarchy in our history, but not now.
*********** 11 WE NEED TO take our ideas of leadership in the church from the New Testament and not from the world. Thus, we should begin not with a worldly concept of authority.
Totally agree!
*********** 12 It's also interesting you say you do not accept Authority when if fact you already have, let me explain
In the early Church there were many letters being past around the Churhes, not only the 27 letters of the now accepted New Testaent but other letters such as ,The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas The Book of Clement The Epistles of Ignatius, These men were all early Christian writers and all of these were circulated in such a way as that some regarded them as scriptural. Others didn't. The Church had to decide what is and what wasnt inspired. Some Letters such as 1 Corinithians and 2 Timothy seem obviously inspired by God. But tell me what is so obvious in Philemon to indicate that it is inspired? And what is so obviously unorthodox in The Shepherd or the Didache or Clement's letter or any of the other first-and second-century Christian writings?
It was just because of this confusion that the Church eventually decided to define what was and wasn't the Inspired Word of God. Which was completed in 397 AD.
>So it was the Catholic Church, the Pope and Bishops, with the guidance
>of the Holy Spirit who decided what 27 letters
would and would not make up the New Testament.
>
> If one believes in the authenticity of the Bible, It therefore
>logically and really means that they have accepted the
Authority
>of the Catholic Church, Popes and Bishops (whether they like it or not).
I think this is a funny point you make. I disagree if you believe that God was not involved in this. It was certainly his book to make. You seem to imply that men made these decisions and God was not involved. I have read some of the early writings. I have not seen anything yet that is not either duplicated or completely out there. (I haven't read everything, so I don't want to pretend to know it all.) For example, I seem to remember one story where Jesus torched a kid for knocking him down. Should that be in the Bible? God could have used the very devil to write the Bible. Even the order you list them in infers that the Holy Spirit was at the Pope/Bishops disposal as some kind of guiding force that they wielded. No, I believe it was the other way around.
There are many non-Biblical sources about Jesus. Whether they are true or not, they don't add anything to his message. Jesus came to this earth to suffer and die. I deserve what Jesus went through. He took my place of punishment. God was showing us what hell is like. Jesus went through that for me, it is a free gift, and all I have to do is accept it. What other books do I need to show me that? What can other books contribute to or improve that message?
*********** 13 For it was though
>this Church that came the Bible as you and I know it today.
>
> If I did not trust in the Authority of the Catholic Church it would
>follow that I would be morally obligated to reject the New testament.
>
> But as I do believe in the 27 inspired letters of the New Testamet as
decided with the guidence of the Holy Spirit by the Pope and Bishops of the
>Catholic Church in the 4th century. It does then make sense that The
>Holy
Spirt is working in this Church.
If you go back to some of the Catholic history or some of the mandates from the councils like Trent, would you agree that some of their teaching was not Biblical? For example, do you believe in purgatory or granting indulgences? Do you believe that Christ left the church the power to forgive sins? Are these teachings from the Holy Spirit or from men? Would the one true church (if you infer that non-Catholic churches are apostate and outside Christ) practice and teach such things? Ever? Should God's church behave and act differently today than it did in the book of Acts?
*********** 14 You say,"Our church has Elders and Deacons, yes, but there is no centralized church authority to tell us how to think, act, etc."
We Catholics are not told how to think or act either, however when it comes to doctrine, we are to be completely united as it is stated in the
Bible 1 Cor 1:10. Complete unity is a fundamental aspect of the Church
Christ founded.
Really? You are not going to tell me that the Catholic church is united are you? I agree that we should strive for unity, but not at the expense of what God states in the Bible. Jesus is what unites believers, not church membership.
*********** 15 And also you say there is no "centralized Authority"
The Bible shows a much different church than the one you describe.
[Abbreviated]
If you are going to claim that the line of apostles started with Peter, and he was succeeded by other apostles down through the centuries, then where did their power go? Where are the miracles and Spiritual gifts? Apostles were more than just men who wrote their views, gave speeches, etc. They did not dress in glamorous robes and hats with servants tending to their various whims. There were certainly not leaders of their own country, or holed up in some huge palace separated from the flocks. There were not world leaders and they certainly did not hoard wealth or treasure. I know of no Apostle in the NT who ever declared someone to be a saint, or to pray to someone other than God. And where in the Bible does it say that one is to be appointed as Peter's replacement through the ages? In fact, does not the very term vicar in Latin mean “in place of Christ”?
I can't accept that viewpoint because no man should ever replace or be between myself and God. That just does not exist in the Bible. Peter never replaced Jesus. Peter was a leader, yes, but God did not place all spiritual decisions in his hands. He, like all believers after him, was led by the Holy Spirit. And we who are born again have that same capability. Yes, we all have various gifts and jobs, but we are all part of the same body. No one man here is the brain in that body.
*********** 15 You said,
"Where you and I may part company is in regards to baptism. For example, I do not believe that a child can repent, nor can parents repent for them, etc. I also do not see anywhere in scripture where children were baptized, or where they were sprinkled, etc. These are traditions and changes made by man"
** Baptism of Children
Of Course a child has not sinned but a child (as all of us has the stain of Original sin (Adam and Eve) and by baptism the child is also officially brought into the church.
Baptism does not remove what you call original sin. We all die regardless of whether we are saved or not. So baptism is for a different *sin* if you want to call it that. You are not saying that children who die young and are not baptized go to hell are you? So your infant baptism (which I was baptized in the same way) did nothing more than get my head wet. It did make my parents feel better, but it did nothing spiritual for me.
** And in the Early Church as early as 70 AD (written in "The Didache").
Pouring water over the one to be baptised (when a river or lake was not
accesable) we perfectly acceptable. Imagine desert people who do not have access to an immersion Baptism. Or when one is on his deathbed and wishes to be baptised And in the Catholic Church today, one can if he wishes be baptised by full imersion, if he wishes
Nowhere in the Bible is anyone who is immersed done so with sprinkling. Do you agree with that? Even the Essennes in the desert had mikvas. There is water everywhere. I cannot agree with your logic.
** Jesus calls all to Baptism
Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
You are adding something not in the text. No immersion mentioned here.
** But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom.
You are adding something not in the text. No immersion mentioned here.
** Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col.
2:11–12).
COL 2:11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Where does it say that circumcision replaces baptism?
** In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
Why not? It is a great parallel. But not to infer that children should be baptized in addition to men and women. You are really stretching this one to fit your viewpoint.
** Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will.
I agree. It does not say it is restricted to adults.
** This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.
Ha! So then we must allow infants to be sprinkled based on this statement?
** But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul's preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16). In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included.
No infants mentioned here. I love your logic. These households MUST have had infants. Sorry, adding to God's word to fit a viewpoint.
*********** 16
Regarding your second email, I think I agree with you. It is all grace. I am not sure how many works the thief on the cross did—that to me is a great example of grace.
I made it to the end. Whew! Feel free to distill any of this down. It is hard to respond to so much material, but I felt I needed to. I am glad I got insomnia tonight – it is now 5 AM. :s
