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) - 12/27/2005
Question Dear Michael, Merry Christmas and happy new year to you, and congradulations, that you have been blessed with a lot of work. I also have just recieved some work lately. Praise God!
Allow me to respond to your last emial,
You said,
"Well certainly you have exposed your viewpoint well. If I were to sum this up, you are espousing that the RCC is the only true and right church; that in order to be saved you must or should be a member of the RCC at some time; that membership into the RCC is done by sprinkling, sacraments, etc.; that the RCC is totally united; that mistakes and abuses of power in the RCC past did occur; and that to be a member of this church, you would be under the authority of the hierarchy, with the Pope being the chief *bishop* at the top. Is this a fair characterization?
However we don't say all other faiths are false, we would say though that other faiths and churches have partial truth, while the RCC has the fullness of truth.
And it is the will of God that all people come to the fullness of faith in the Church He founded.
And while those who know the RCC is the True faith must join her. Those who through no fault of there own, have never been exposed to the Truth of the RCC, but still follow the graces God has given them and followed there own reason, can by the mercy of God still be saved. God is not limited by anything.
And Yes, baptism is the sacrament of initiation into the Church, And one can be baptized by immersion if requested. (though to get technical a baptism is considered valid as long as the water rolls down the head)
This has been taugh since the beginning of Christianity.
As we read in the Didache written in 70 AD.
That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.
The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.
And Yes abuses of Power did occur, but that is not to say they do or cannot happen in some form again. In fact the Church has always had scandal, starting with Judas betraying Jesus, and then Peter denying Jesus and all (but John) abandoning Him on the cross.
...
You say,
So whether the sign on the building states something like Church of Christ, the Church at Galatia, Mars Hill, etc. the idea is that membership into God's church is done the same way. But in doing so, you are under no obligation to be a member of the church you were saved at. Hopefully I have made that position clear.
Yes, by Baptism one is connected(however, imperfectly) to the One Church Christ founded no matter where that takes place, as long as it is done in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
However Micheal you are missing my main point, that Christ did not start and the apostles did not spread any of the churches you mention above. They started One Church, and while the Church of Galatia and others may teach some good things. They are not the Church Christ founded. And do not hold the fullness of truth.
What is an example of a truth forgotten by these churches? One would be the Eucharist. This was believed by all the earlist Christians.
Ignatius of Antioch(disciple of John)
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
"'Eat my flesh,' [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table' [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ's] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink' [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord' [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
One convert to the RCC fromm the Assembly of God put it this way, after he discovered the writings of the Early Christians for the first time.
"Through all my studying, researching, questioning, praying, listening, watching, I kept coming back to a few central questions. I kept coming back to a few simple comparisons.
One church:
• Was the original Christian Church
• Was founded by Christ and will endure forever
• Was united (world-wide) by the unity of doctrines it proclaims
• Taught identical doctrines to those of the Apostles and early Church
• Was authoritative and governs with the power given it by God.
The other church:
• Was probably around the 12,000th Christian church
• Was founded by E.N. Bell, in Arkansas, in 1914
• Had some unity in doctrine with themselves – but they have/can change
• Taught against many of the doctrines of the Apostles and early Church
• Admitted it has no authority outside the bible"
(you can read his story at
www.catholicconvert.com/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/Documents/Story55Monty.doc)
...
You say,
From my side, I am stating that membership in a particular world church is not required, but that in order to be saved, you must repent and be immersed for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38 for example), and that by doing so, you receive the free gift of the Holy Spirit.
Michael with all due respect, you seem to have a minimialist attitute.
By that I am saying it seems as if you are saying, "What is the least I must do to be saved" You cannot take this one verse and then say," If I only do this I will be saved, rather you must give the Bible equal weight on all matters of salavtion.
Let us look at what the Bible says as a whole about being saved
Mark 13:13
All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved
Mark 16:16 NIV
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 2:21 NIV
And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
Acts 15:11 NIV
No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
Acts 16:31 NIV
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."
Romans 8:24 NIV
For in this hope we were saved.
Romans 10:9 NIV
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
1 Corinthians 15:2 NIV
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 NIV
[ Stand Firm ] But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you [ Some manuscripts because God chose you as his firstfruits] to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
Hebrews 10:39 NIV
But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.
Philippians 2:12 NIV
[ Shining as Stars ] Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
I put these quotes here to show that salvation can be lost, even after baptism.
...
You say,
"Perhaps you could explain this one. Are you saying that if I have repented of my sins to God and I have been immersed (but I am not nor ever been a member of the RCC), that I am saved?"
One can be saved, If by no fault of their own, one did not know the fullness of Christianity is found in the RCC. In other words, if you were ignorant of the Truth, by no fault of your own.
Though let us remember Our Lord wants all to come to the Knowledge of truth. 1 Tim 2:4
...
You say,
"Where does Paul state that the RCC is the true church?"
Of course Paul does not say the word "Catholic" Perhaps I could have better phased my sentance saying "the Chruch Christ founded" (which is what we claim to be.)
the term "Catholic was first written in 107 AD by Ignatious of Antioch a disciple of John.
the word means "universal" It was used by the Early Christians to describle the Church Christ founded so all would know that this New faith was open to all people.In contrast to the Jewish faith which was primarily only for Jews. (though there were a few Jewish converts)
Ignatius of Antioch
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
...
Autonomy among Churches you say,
In Paul's missionary journeys, he established churches in various places. For example:
TIT 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.
I dont Think Paul here is allowing for this church to have doctrinal diffrences than the others do you? Yes he is telling them to appoint elders, as all churches need elders but I do not see him telling them to then make up there own doctrine.(Would it make sense for two churches to hold contradictory doctrine and still say they both hold the truth?, is God divided?)
And if you take Paul's Writings as a whole it is quite obvious I think that division among the churches was something to be totally rejected.
...
You also say,
"I also believe when Jesus was writing to the individual churches in Revelations, each one had its own set of issues and praise. Autonomous"
Yes each Church did have individual problems, as still is the case today.
I may have a problem in my Church that is different from the problem in the Church in the next city.
And yes, the Individual churches did recived advice in Revelation according to their own circumstances, but is does not say that these churches had separate doctrines.
And again I will repeat no where in the Bible does it say the Churches had separate doctrines. But the Bible does severely stress Unity.
...
You say,
"Jesus didn't mention anything about hierarchy or Pope – he could have and ended the entire debate right there."
However Michael, there was no debate. That is why its not mentioned by name, (though I personally think its obvious already in scripture)
In the same way the Seven-Day Adventist say, "Why didn't the apostles just say then officially they were moving the Sabbath to Sunday if it is true" My answer is the same, there was no debate on the subject, For by the time the NT letters were written all Christians celebrated the Lords supper on Sunday. Remember the NT letters are in a sence occasinal documents dealing with the problems of the Churches.
The same with infant baptism, it was not mentioned directly because there was not debate on the subject and the Early Christian writers also do not have a problem with baptising infants
Let us look to the Early Christian writings to see what they said on Matters of the Popes and Heriarchy.(note the term Pope was not used until the 4th centuy.)
Pope Clement I
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
Hegesippus
"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
Irenaeus
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).
"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).
"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).
"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).
"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).
Tertullian
"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).
...
Saints you say,
"I had to single this one out. You tend to argue a position with supposition. When you say “they must be aware”, you and making up something in the scripture that is not there. Do you have a scripture to back up your viewpoint here? I would be happy to debate or discuss in that context"
Yes, I was try to show what i think is already obvious, but I will give other verses as well...
The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).
And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren't just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
www.catholic.com
...
celibacy,
Regarding this whole section, my question to you is this. Why is it a requirement to be celibate to be a priest? And if it is, where in scripture does it say that?
It was not required that a Priest be celebate until the 12th century, it is a "disicple law" and not a doctrine, which can be changed at any time by any Pope. And while the Bible supports it, it does not call for it as requirement. Personlly I think celebacy should be optional.
However celebacy among the clergy can be traced back to the Early Christians.
...You say
"So why is it a requirement in the RCC to wear robes and collars?"
the basic purpose of vestments is to differentiate the person from his or her ordinary, everyday self. An ordinary and fallible person has to become the representative of Christ at the altar and needs to be different for that time from the man or woman with whom parishioners might disagree heatedly at meetings or in the street. Those who assist the priest in sanctuary and choir wear similar vestments for the same reason.
...
Pews
YOu say
"My point is that these things are not necessary and were added by men. Whether they are offensive to God or not I don't know. It just seems to me that churches (including the RCC) tend to think that the bigger and grander the building, the more attractive to people they are. The early church in the NT had none of these things – they were added by men. For example, do you consider an intricately carved, wooden pew a requirement, or does a simple chair do? What do you sit on at your local RCC? I will never forget a friend of mine in Sweden who went to the Vatican – she was disgusted by the amount of wealth that was showcased because she was so familiar with the poor and suffering in some of the places she was in around the world. That is the point I was trying to make – there is a fair amount of things in the church that God neither authorized nor told us to collect money for."
For me to sit on anything will do, in India We all sit on the floor for Mass because its not there custom in some places to use pews.
In my college chapel we had chairs to sit in and Ive been to some churches that use chairs.I have also participated in Mass Outside, and in a living room and even once in a Hotel room.
If tomorrow somehow all pews were broke and we had to use chairs, it would make no difference whatsoever.
Personnaly I like Pews.
And I cant see any reason God minds or Cares what we sit in during mass, its probably the least of His concerns.
If you want to discuss that the Church wastes money on frivoulous things, that is another subject that I would be happy to discuss. And I may agree with a lot of things, but the Church also does many good things with the money she recieves.
...
You say
why did the RCC insist on the Latin translation only, and why were people who tried to translate the Bible into a different language killed? Wycliffe I believe is one example, and even his bones were dug up and burned he was so hated.
I will have to look up the Latin translations Bible, but I will quess Latin because it was the language spoken in Rome and because it is a language that does not change over time, because, many other languages like english do.
And one false hood is that the Church tried to stop all those who tried to traslate the bible. Did you know by the time of the reformation the Bible was already traslated into about 7 different languages including German.
The Church did try to stop many though who made very obviously bad interpretations of the Bible.
Though remember the Church protected the Bible for 2000 years. from Barbarian invasions and the like. If the Church hated the Bible or something like that, she could have destroyed all the copies, but of course the church loves the Bible.
As far as Ive reaserched John Wycliff died of a stroke and it wasnt until 12 years later his remains were dug up by the Church and burned.
...
You say,
If God wanted the church to be a top-down structure, and if the top of that structure got corrupt, is that still God's true church? Is it the true church only when it is not corrupt, or is it always?
God's Chruch is always God Church(Just as when the Jews disobey God,He still never broke his covenant with them), no matter what, and remember the Church has never had errors of Doctrine, Men yes, doctirne Never.
Let me again print a quote by Maritn Luther, that touches on this issue.
"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
...
Prayer to saints
You say
"I have never asked any of my Christian friends who are in heaven to intercede for me, or to make petitions to God. I think this is totally unbiblical, especially given the language in the NT about how the Spirit petitions God on my behalf. You will have difficulty convincing me of this one, especially since I see nothing in scripture about it. However, please try – I will try to keep an open mind."
I was trying to show that praying to the saints for intercession is no different than asking a living friend to pray for you. I am not promoting asking deceased friends to pray for us.
...
More saved,
Just to be clear, I do not believe it is possible to be saved without the individual repenting and being immersed for the forgiveness of their sins. So if you were sprinkled as a child only, then I do not believe you are born again.
This is intresting because I was watching a famous and well respected Evangelical protostant on TV last week, and he said for one to be "born again" all they had to do was repeat a prayer that he said. He didnt even mention baptism. So whos right? Your Bible alone theologhy or His. or are you both?
One last thing i will say is that we have difference views on salvation and the process of salvation.
...
You say,
We can agree to disagree, but nowhere in the Bible is sprinkling or infant baptism taught, even though you infer that it is. Baptism and repentance are linked at the hip so to speak; they are done together. It is not membership into a physical church that saves – it is repentance, immersion, and faith that one gains entrance into God's church.
Your right it is ultimeltly Jesus who saves, no one will argure that, and His instument is the Church he started.
And we can loose our salvation after baptism.( I will be happy to expand on this)
And the Bible doesnt forbid infant baptism
And you hold another unbiblical belife, that is your Bible alone theology.
If it is in the Bible show me.
And you reject the One Church the Bible tells us is the Pillar and ground for Truth. 1 Tim 3:15
They cant all be true as they teach contray ideas to one another. which is the corrcect church?
Please see I am sincere.
Michael I have seached the Bible for the Chruch you preach about, butI cant find it, And the Chruch is not some invisible force or idea, it is real and was spead by the apostles. There blood is testimony to that.
Please note it is very late where I am now sorry if I wasnt clear on some issues let me know if there is anything I wasnt clear about.
I am glad to have this discussion with you. I look forward to your response, with joy and I hope I havent written anything to strongly As truthfully I am trying to get to the heart of our discussions
God bless
Jeff Myers
Answer Hi Jeff!
Where to begin?
-------------------------------------
You state: As we read in the Didache written in 70 AD.
Where are you getting this date? I am no Nicene scholar, but the only copy of this document I am aware of is from around 1056 AD. And secondly, who wrote it?
Just to state my view on this issue, I believe the Bible to be the final Word of God, and the only authority on all issues – sin, life, church structure, salvation, etc. I believe that with the help of the Holy Spirit, God used a variety of men to write it. It is the inspired Word of God. When it comes to doctrinal issues, I have no problem looking outside the Bible for wisdom, interpretation, or instruction, but only when compared to the Bible. So whatever my preacher or your Pope states, it must be compared to God's word. So when (as a small example) you reference early writings to support your viewpoint of infant sprinkling, I reject it because the Bible does not mention sprinkling or infants in conjunction with immersion (though I agree with your assertion that infants are NOT mentioned.) However, the Bible DOES mention that in order to be saved, you must repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38.) That is what I believe being born of water and Spirit is. Logically I see no way an infant can make that appeal for repentance, and since no person can repent for me, getting my head wet did nothing for my soul. I hope that sums up my viewpoint on both early writings and salvation. I do want to be clear – though I believe immersion is required for salvation, it is the *in Jesus* part that saves – his blood, his sacrifice, etc. Jesus states to Peter in John 13: “unless I wash you, you will have no part of me.” I especially like Peter's analogy in 1 Peter 3 where he compares baptism (which he states saves you there as well) to Noah and the flood. In order to be saved, we must also pass through the storm. Our ark is Jesus. Jesus is the how; immersion is the when.
Finally, I do agree that one can loose their salvation. Hebrews 6 addresses that as well as language in Revelations. For example, “if you continue”, “if you hold firm”, etc. No point to debate here.
-------------------------------------
You state: Michael with all due respect, you seem to have a minimalist attitude. By that I am saying it seems as if you are saying, "What is the least I must do to be saved"
I agree with this to a point. I don't believe God ever intended for the NT church to be complicated at all. And I do believe worldly churches like the RCC (sorry!) are extremely complicated and full of rules and regulations invented by men. If makes me a minimalist, then so be it. We can disagree on this (I know you will – ha!), but ultimately my point is that the church is made up of living temples (saved individuals), not the other way around (a physical temple with members.) The rules about church governance come from the Bible, not from men. So whatever the sign on the building states, if people have obeyed the gospel regarding Jesus and salvation, and these same people are a light in the community (walk the walk), then who am I to say that they are not the “true and right church.” Jesus prayed for unity; the apostles defended unity; but that doesn't mean they were united – each church had its own problems to deal with. Again, for a top-down structure like the RCC, if the top ever became corrupt, the whole thing is corrupt. I actually think there is great advantage in autonomous churches, and I equally believe that is exactly how the churches in the NT were structured.
-------------------------------------
You state: However we don't say all other faiths are false, we would say though that other faiths and churches have partial truth, while the RCC has the fullness of truth.
I disagree with you (sincerely of course.) How can you say that a particular church is partially true, while the RCC is fully true? What are you basing this statement on? Give me some biblical examples for us to discuss. I find this viewpoint the most interesting of your debate points. I want to try to understand it better.
-------------------------------------
You state: And it is the will of God that all people come to the fullness of faith in the Church He founded.
I believe it is the will of God for each and every person to be saved through Jesus. That is fullness of faith to me. If that is different than what you are stating here, let's discuss further.
-------------------------------------
You state: One can be saved, if by no fault of their own, one did not know the fullness of Christianity is found in the RCC.
I would have been happier here if you would have said “One can be saved if they obey Jesus as described in the Bible.” You are making the case that it is the RCC where we can find the full truth about God and salvation.
1. God –> Jesus –> Me (my viewpoint)
2. God –> Jesus –> RCC –> Me (your viewpoint)
Is this an accurate representation?
-------------------------------------
You state: I don't think Paul here is allowing for this church to have doctrinal differences than the others do you? And if you take Paul's Writings as a whole it is quite obvious I think that division among the churches was something to be totally rejected.
I Agree. Paul makes this statement:
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. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.
I am not advocating that each church have its own set of rules and regulations. I am saying that the structure looks like this:
God – Jesus – Local Church – (Elders and members)
God – Jesus – Pope – Regional Bishops (how many layers are here by the way?) – Local Church (Priest, bishops, deacons, and members)
Is this a fair representation of the RCC hierarchy?
-------------------------------------
You state: it was not mentioned directly because there was not debate on the subject and the Early Christian writers also do not have a problem with …
I would assume that there was ferocious debate about all sorts of church issues to the point of people being abused, murdered, and excommunicated for challenging their church. Maybe you have a better understanding of early church history than I – is this what you mean when you say that all early churches were united? :)
-------------------------------------
You state regarding celibacy: … it is a "disciple law" and not a doctrine, which can be changed at any time by any Pope.
I am sure you know my view on this by now – not in the Bible, so I reject it. These teachings are rules taught by men.
-------------------------------------
You state: I will guess Latin because it was the language spoken in Rome and because it is a language that does not change over time
Few people could speak or read Latin; it was uncommon. Hopefully you understand my point about a few people being in possession of God's knowledge. How that could be bad.
-------------------------------------
You state: It wasn't until 12 years later his remains were dug up by the Church and burned.
Why was this? Is this some sort of church ritual? Is it practiced today?
-------------------------------------
You state: God's Church is always God Church (Just as when the Jews disobey God, He still never broke his covenant with them), no matter what, and remember the Church has never had errors of Doctrine, Men yes, doctrine Never.
REV 2:1 "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. 5 Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
(I am quoting this to make my point.)
If Jesus removed this lampstand from its place, would they cease to be part of God's church?
-------------------------------------
You state: I was trying to show that praying to the saints for intercession is no different than asking a living friend to pray for you. I am not promoting asking deceased friends to pray for us.
If my deceased friend is a Christian saint, can I pray to him? Can I pray to Mary?
-------------------------------------
You state: This is interesting because I was watching a famous and well respected Evangelical protestant on TV last week, and he said for one to be "born again" all they had to do was repeat a prayer that he said. He didn't even mention baptism. So who's right?
The Bible states:
AC 2:38 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.
Whether I am right or wrong is not relevant. If he equates REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED with saying the SINNERS PRAYER, then I would disagree with him. God is the final judge on these matters.
-------------------------------------
You state: And you hold another unbiblical belief, that is your Bible alone theology. If it is in the Bible show me.
I believe that salvation is found in Jesus ALONE. I believe that the very words of Jesus are ONLY found in the Bible. I believe the Bible is the ONLY true Word of God. If this is to be labeled a Bible-alone viewpoint, then I agree. Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? Your question infers that you believe there are other sources from God – what are they?
ER 23:29 "Is not my word like fire," declares the LORD, "and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?
JN 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
HEB 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Hopefully that covers everything. This will be my last email for 2005 – talk to you next year! Have a great New Years and a safe trip!
