Baptism Is Required

[foundsheep]

That brings up the question, are we going to Trust 2000 years or 500? hmmm.

[the lumberjack]

whats THAT supposed to mean?

just because I don't take everything thats put in my face for what I'm told it is...because I dig deeper and see for MYSELF that the scriptures say that...that I look and study, instead of always being fed. I LOVE my pastor, and have the utmost respect for him...but ultimately, its up to ME to read the word and arm myself...with help from Veterans in the Good Fight...my pastor, and Elders that have been in the Battlefield for the Lord...

didn't Peter and Paul disagree?

didn't the writer of the Proverbs say, "Bind these words to your heart..."

IMPLYING that I, ME, should bind them to my heart, instead of letting someone tape them to my heart...and I push the "I believe" button?

sorry, I'm called in the Scripture to test the spirits and make sure that they are of God...and in 2nd Corinthians 11:12And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.

I don't do this for my boasting or bragging or to point out that anyone is wrong...I do this so we'd all grow...but apparently since I'm not catholic, nothing I say matters. even if it IS FIRMLY founded in God's word. and yet, it somehow doesn't get to me, because I hold to the hope and prayer that SOMEONE on this site, either a homebody, or someone passing by, will see and be moved to not just be told what to believe...but to actually look and test the weight of what is in their doctrine.

I DO THIS ON A DAILY BASIS..and pray that the Lord trim away all the things that are not of Him...I read and read and read over what you post here, praying and thinking about how Scriptural it is. See, I cling to the 1978 Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy....or whatever its called.

there would have been NO split if SOMEONE wouldn't have seen something wrong. ANYONE can point the finger and say Luther this, and someone that...but if they had NOT seen SOMETHING in the SLIGHTEST wrong...they would not have done what they did...

a Christian knows another Christian by their life, testimony and works...not by the slightly differing doctrine that one might hold. A life on fire for Christ is UNMISTAKEABLE...

isn't this how you would tell who is a TRUE catholic and who isn't?

[Laudate_Dominum]

lumberjack,

I apologize if any of the posts on this thread have been rude and offensive, I'm sure that is not what anyone has intended.
I think your posts have been good and sincere and I give you props for seeking the truth the way you do. I respect you as a brother in Christ and hope that my posts have not offended you.
I agree that we should test the spirits and discern what is true and all of that and not blindly believe whatever someone tells us. Amen.
I also think that a lot of times people say things and don't mean to be rude or anything but when another person reads it he might perceive the post in that way. I've seen that happen a lot on here. I personally am very glad you are here and hope that you aren't turned off by stuff. I find that compared to most forum sites out there this one is certainly one of the more charitible. I guess it's hard to have debates and things without some tension.

Peace bro.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 9 2004, 03:14 AM'] whats THAT supposed to mean?

just because I don't take everything thats put in my face for what I'm told it is...because I dig deeper and see for MYSELF that the scriptures say that...that I look and study, instead of always being fed. I LOVE my pastor, and have the utmost respect for him...but ultimately, its up to ME to read the word and arm myself...with help from Veterans in the Good Fight...my pastor, and Elders that have been in the Battlefield for the Lord...

didn't Peter and Paul disagree?

didn't the writer of the Proverbs say, "Bind these words to your heart..."

IMPLYING that I, ME, should bind them to my heart, instead of letting someone tape them to my heart...and I push the "I believe" button?

sorry, I'm called in the Scripture to test the spirits and make sure that they are of God...and in 2nd Corinthians 11:12And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.

I don't do this for my boasting or bragging or to point out that anyone is wrong...I do this so we'd all grow...but apparently since I'm not catholic, nothing I say matters. even if it IS FIRMLY founded in God's word. and yet, it somehow doesn't get to me, because I hold to the hope and prayer that SOMEONE on this site, either a homebody, or someone passing by, will see and be moved to not just be told what to believe...but to actually look and test the weight of what is in their doctrine.

I DO THIS ON A DAILY BASIS..and pray that the Lord trim away all the things that are not of Him...I read and read and read over what you post here, praying and thinking about how Scriptural it is. See, I cling to the 1978 Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy....or whatever its called.

there would have been NO split if SOMEONE wouldn't have seen something wrong. ANYONE can point the finger and say Luther this, and someone that...but if they had NOT seen SOMETHING in the SLIGHTEST wrong...they would not have done what they did...

a Christian knows another Christian by their life, testimony and works...not by the slightly differing doctrine that one might hold. A life on fire for Christ is UNMISTAKEABLE...

isn't this how you would tell who is a TRUE catholic and who isn't? [/quote]
Lumber remember you are talking to a lot of people here who are former protestants who have converted. THey have been where you are.

We do read the Scriptures and study them, every Mass we go to we hear lots of Scripture proclaimed: an OT reading, a reading from an Epistle, , a psalm, and part of one of the Gospels. But Mass itself, is an act of worship, it is the Last Supper, which started out as the Passover meal. we are following the command of Jesus: do THIS in memory of me. Have you seen the Passion of the Christ yet? Did you notice how Gibson kept switching from Cross to Last Supper? That is the Mass.

Peter and Paul did disagreed, but then Paul submitted to the authority of Peter. Somebody has to be in charge. We are not Catholics because we love our pastors, although some of us do. We are Catholic because it is the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

We test things against the teachings of the Church, because therein resides the Word of God, found both in Scripture AND the teachings handed down from the Apostles (Sacred Tradition). Remember the Scriptures you have today are not as old as the Church Jesus founded. Scripture does not stand alone. Paul said if there is a dispute, go to the Church.

Nobody hear thinks you are bragging or boasting. You are sharing what you believe, and so are we. You are assuming however, that we do not know the truth, that we have not studied the Word of God, and we have not tested out our beliefs.
That is simply wrong. There are many people in the world who are part of a religion because they were born there, accept everything and simply stay there.
You probably won't find any of those people here at phatmass. As I said before many people hear are converts from protestantism.

"a Christian knows another Christian by their life, testimony and works.. A life on fire for Christ is UNMISTAKEABLE..."
Absolutely. You definitely have the love of God in your heart, and you share it freely. And we do grow in understanding with the pleasure of your company and thoughts, and we do go back and check our beliefs against the teachings of the Church, to clarify our thinking and sharing what we believe to be true. We share many many things in common and priase God for that.

will post more later, the cat keeps sitting omthe keyboard

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 9 2004, 10:25 AM'] 1. Remember the Scriptures you have today are not as old as the Church Jesus founded.

2. You are assuming however, that we do not know the truth, that we have not studied the Word of God, and we have not tested out our beliefs. [/quote]
the Scriptures I hold ARE older than any church. OUR church was not around when Moses was on the mountain talking to the Burning bush. Our church was not around when David slew Goliath...when Solomon penned any of his writings.

and I never said you guys (and girls) were dumb or didn't know anything.

I never said that I didn't believe anything the Catholic Church teaches.

[quote]I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
    the Creator of heaven and earth,
    and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
    born of the virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
    and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
    whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and life everlasting.

Amen.[/quote]

and some of the stuff that I'm reading from everyone's posts is helping me understand some other things... but I still hold to the Bible as the sole authority of the Christian life.

I'm NOT saying that the elders of the church don't help, because I KNOW that people that have been serving the Lord longer than I have, will have knowledge and insight that I don't.

[jasJis]

[quote]I'm NOT saying that the elders of the church don't help, because I KNOW that people that have been serving the Lord longer than I have, will have knowledge and insight that I don't. [/quote]
From a purely logical arguement, identifying the 'elders of the church' and the knowledge and insight they have, (due to the graces of enlightenment, discernment, and in the case of Apostles and early Disciples, actually learning from Jesus in the flesh) is what is identified and held to as the Body of Knowledge called "Tradition" by the Catholic Church. It does not surpass Scripture, but works in conjuction with. Scripture is not a stand-alone 'authority' given to us. We are also provided with the 'authorative' knowledge and discernment shown to others in prior times.
If one cannot believe that 'authorative understanding' of what Jesus taught is/was preserved before words were penned to paper, then Scripture has NO authority, unless it can be shown to be written by the very hand of God. For example, consider the correctly logical teaching of Joseph Smith and the Golden Tablets.

[the lumberjack]

I'm not so comfortable with calling it "tradition", but if thats what you call it, ok.

when I think of "tradition"...I think of something that was started by man, out of the thoughts of man. now, the definition of tradition is not confined to ONLY this, but tradition is not usually looked upon positively by the Bible...Christ Himself pointed it out when talking to the Jews how useless their "tradtion" was...but thats not why I'm posting.

[quote]It does not surpass Scripture, but works in conjuction with. Scripture is not a stand-alone 'authority' given to us.[/quote]
ulimately, when men fail...which WE do, because we are NOT God, the Bible is the only SOLID authority we have.

[quote]We are also provided with the 'authorative' knowledge and discernment shown to others in prior times.[/quote]
and I'm not arguing this point...brothers from the past have broken down the bible and said some REALLY GREAT stuff...and it helps. but lets not take their words in place of God's word....like you said, it works in conjuncture with...and like I said, the Bible is our ultimate authority....

[quote]If one cannot believe that 'authorative understanding' of what Jesus taught is/was preserved before words were penned to paper, then Scripture has NO authority, unless it can be shown to be written by the very hand of God.[/quote]
word to this also! the words were first spoken, THEN written...but the Bible is the God's Revelation of Himself to man....written thru man.

[quote]For example, consider the correctly logical teaching of Joseph Smith and the Golden Tablets.[/quote]

WHOA WHOA WHOA....lets not get into a Mormon discussion now...thats a whole different bag of rotten apples!

love.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 9 2004, 03:47 PM'] the Scriptures I hold ARE older than any church. OUR church was not around when Moses was on the mountain talking to the Burning bush. Our church was not around when David slew Goliath...when Solomon penned any of his writings.

and I never said you guys (and girls) were dumb or didn't know anything.

I never said that I didn't believe anything the Catholic Church teaches.



and some of the stuff that I'm reading from everyone's posts is helping me understand some other things... but I still hold to the Bible as the sole authority of the Christian life.

I'm NOT saying that the elders of the church don't help, because I KNOW that people that have been serving the Lord longer than I have, will have knowledge and insight that I don't. [/quote]
"and I never said you guys (and girls) were dumb or didn't know anything."

no, you never accuse us of being "dumb" but you do post stuff like this:

"just because I don't take everything thats put in my face for what I'm told it is...because I dig deeper and [u]see for MYSELF [/u]that the scriptures say that...that I look and study, instead of always being fed."

and

"because I hold to the hope and prayer that SOMEONE on this site, either a homebody, or someone passing by, will see and be moved to not just be told what to believe...[u]but to actually look and test the weight of what is in their doctrine.
"[/u]



I underlined your assumptions. Again you are assuming as a matter of course that Catholics do not think for themselves, and that we have not studied the Word of God. This is wrong.
Many of the Catholics here are EX-protestants and used to be sola scriptura themselves.

I am glad we have many things in common. A large portion of the Catholic Catrechism is devoted to the Apostles Creed. In fact in part one they study it extensively line by line. [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm[/url]

[marielapin]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 9 2004, 03:23 PM']
ulimately, when men fail...which WE do, because we are NOT God, the Bible is the only SOLID authority we have.

[/quote]
This is exactly our point. Scripture is not self-interpreting. Therefore we as the fallible humans cannot just pick up the Bible, read it and *pop* understand completely what is meant in every passage. Our Tradition comes from the times of the Apostles....before the time where scripture is in the form it is now...the Bible. In the early church maybe only one letter or one gospel would be there for instructional use. So the instruction had to come from somewhere else...and that somewhere is Tradition, writings of the Early Church Fathers. They go hand in hand. For 400 years the Church did not have the Bible as we have it now. There had to to be some type of instruction, learning going on. We have these documents today, we can read them, we can set them alongside of Scripture.

Another reason we hold Tradition as so important is that we as 21st century Americans do not know the cultural norms of the day. The early Christians knew and understood these.

If the Bible is the only true authority we have, how come there are so many different interpretations of even the same verse, giving way to completely different teachings? If it was a true unquestionable authority by itself alone, there would be no question or argument as to its meanings - it should be as clear as day.

Think of it like this: today, we are having the debate on whether or not to include an Amendment to our Constitution that specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is ridiculous because the people who wrote the Constitution knew of no other definition. This was implied. Never in their wildest dreams would they think that someone would classify marriage as anything else but between one man and one woman. How do we know this? We can read other writings by them and of that time period. We are supposed to have judges that uphold the Constitution, in the way it was written. For, like the Bible, the Constitution is not self-interpreting.

[cmotherofpirl]

when I think of "tradition"...I think of something that was started by man, out of the thoughts of man. now, the definition of tradition is not confined to ONLY this, but tradition is not usually looked upon positively by the Bible...Christ Himself pointed it out when talking to the Jews how useless their "tradtion" was...but thats not why I'm posting.

Christ followed Tradition. He observed and fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. The only traditions he did not follow were ones added on to circumvent the Laws of God, such as korban.


ulimately, when men fail...which WE do, because we are NOT God, the Bible is the only SOLID authority we have.

Nope. That are Peter and upon this rock I will be my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Jesus left a Church behind with someone in charge who has the power to to loose and bind.



and I'm not arguing this point...brothers from the past have broken down the bible and said some REALLY GREAT stuff...and it helps. but lets not take their words in place of God's word....like you said, it works in conjuncture with...and like I said, the Bible is our ultimate authority....

The Bible never claims to be an ultimate Authority. the Bible says the Church is the ultimate authority.


PAX

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='marielapin' date='Mar 9 2004, 02:36 PM'] This is exactly our point. Scripture is not self-interpreting. Therefore we as the fallible humans cannot just pick up the Bible, read it and *pop* understand completely what is meant in every passage. Our Tradition comes from the times of the Apostles....before the time where scripture is in the form it is now...the Bible. In the early church maybe only one letter or one gospel would be there for instructional use. So the instruction had to come from somewhere else...and that somewhere is Tradition, writings of the Early Church Fathers. They go hand in hand. For 400 years the Church did not have the Bible as we have it now. There had to to be some type of instruction, learning going on. We have these documents today, we can read them, we can set them alongside of Scripture.

Another reason we hold Tradition as so important is that we as 21st century Americans do not know the cultural norms of the day. The early Christians knew and understood these.

If the Bible is the only true authority we have, how come there are so many different interpretations of even the same verse, giving way to completely different teachings? If it was a true unquestionable authority by itself alone, there would be no question or argument as to its meanings - it should be as clear as day.

Think of it like this: today, we are having the debate on whether or not to include an Amendment to our Constitution that specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is ridiculous because the people who wrote the Constitution knew of no other definition. This was implied. Never in their wildest dreams would they think that someone would classify marriage as anything else but between one man and one woman. How do we know this? We can read other writings by them and of that time period. We are supposed to have judges that uphold the Constitution, in the way it was written. For, like the Bible, the Constitution is not self-interpreting. [/quote]
great post Marie...and I agree, however...

[quote][b]Cyril of Jerusalem held to sola Scriptura[/b]

The fact that the early Church was faithful to the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid 4th century). He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures.

This work is an extensive series of lectures given to new believers expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. It is a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day.

His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. There is in fact not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture.

He states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. This fact confirms that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. The following excerpts are some of his statements on the final authority of Scripture from these lectures.

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."

"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith...And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts".

Notice in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition, and he exhorts them to hold to the traditions, which they are now receiving. From what source is this tradition derived? Obviously it is derived from the Scriptures, the teaching or tradition or revelation of God, which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church, and which is now accessible in Scripture alone.

[b]Gregory of Nyssa held to sola Scriptura[/b]

Gregory of Nyssa also enunciated this principle. He stated:

"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; [b]we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."[/b]

[b]The Early Church operated on basis of sola Scriptura[/b]

These above quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church. The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the Early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:

[b]Irenaeus:[/b] He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.

[b]Clement of Alexandria:[/b] He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.

[b]Tertullian:[/b] He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.

[b]Origen:[/b] He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.

By the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.[/quote]

if you read this...I hope it helps.

its helped me understand this subject from not just my perspective...but I think its also helped me see it kinda from where you guys are comin from...

love.

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 9 2004, 02:32 PM'] "and I never said you guys (and girls) were dumb or didn't know anything."

no, you never accuse us of being "dumb" but you do post stuff like this:

"just because I don't take everything thats put in my face for what I'm told it is...because I dig deeper and [u]see for MYSELF [/u]that the scriptures say that...that I look and study, instead of always being fed."

and

"because I hold to the hope and prayer that SOMEONE on this site, either a homebody, or someone passing by, will see and be moved to not just be told what to believe...[u]but to actually look and test the weight of what is in their doctrine.
"[/u]



I underlined your assumptions. Again you are assuming as a matter of course that Catholics do not think for themselves, and that we have not studied the Word of God. This is wrong.
Many of the Catholics here are EX-protestants and used to be sola scriptura themselves.

I am glad we have many things in common. A large portion of the Catholic Catrechism is devoted to the Apostles Creed. In fact in part one they study it extensively line by line. [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm[/url] [/quote]
and motherofpirl...I'm sorry if you thought ANY of my assumptions meant anyone here...

its just that growing up around a LOT of "Catholics"...they knew and know VERY LITTLE about "their" church...and most of the time when they try to debate with me, their answers are..."just because"

and we all know that "just because" is a great answer in a debate, eh?

thats why I type that junk...and I'm sorry. I'm only typing out of my experience...

love.

[cmotherofpirl]

Ah - the Saints of the Catholic Church did not believe in Sola Scriptura.

If they did they wold not be Saints.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 9 2004, 06:07 PM'] and motherofpirl...I'm sorry if you thought ANY of my assumptions meant anyone here...

its just that growing up around a LOT of "Catholics"...they knew and know VERY LITTLE about "their" church...and most of the time when they try to debate with me, their answers are..."just because"

and we all know that "just because" is a great answer in a debate, eh?

thats why I type that junk...and I'm sorry. I'm only typing out of my experience...

love. [/quote]
Lumberjack , we do not have to know all the details of our Church to be faithful Catholics.
It is not a requirement.

Not everyone is interested in debating people, most are just happy being faithful.

Last I checked, that was a requirement.

[the lumberjack]

but one should be able to defend their faith, woudln't you agree?

in order to evangelize someone, you have to have SOME answers...

and these people presented little or no answers to any of my questions.