Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic - Religion (27) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic (89304 Views)
Adeboye & Oyedepo At Pentecostal Fellowship Of Nigeria (pics) / "Crippled Man Rises & Walks At A Catholic Church In Anambra" - Lady Claims (Pics / "Pentecostal Pastors Are Marketers": Oladele Ogundipe Genesis (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) ... (38) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 5:43am On Mar 24, 2018 |
brocab:Have you searched the website I showed you for the answer? What did it say? |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 5:43am On Mar 24, 2018 |
brocab:Which church is it? |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 6:03am On Mar 24, 2018 |
Which church—that is, which denomination of Christianity—is the “true church”? Which church is the one that God loves and cherishes and died for? Which church is His bride? (Ephesians 2:8–9). The answer is that no visible church or denomination is the true church, because the bride of Christ is not an institution, but is instead a spiritual entity made up of those who have by grace through faith been brought into a close, intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Those people, no matter which building, denomination, or country they happen to be in, constitute the true church. In the Bible, we see that the local (or visible) church is nothing more than a gathering of professing believers. Interestingly enough, the word church is never used in the Bible to describe a building or organization. It is easy to get ensnared by the idea that a particular denomination within Christianity is “the true church,” but this view is a misunderstanding of Scripture. When choosing a church to attend, it is important to remember that a gathering of believers should be a place where those who belong to the true church (the spiritual entity) feel at home. That is to say, a good local church will uphold the Word of God, honoring it and preaching faithfully, proclaim the gospel steadfastly, and feed and tend the sheep. A church that teaches heresy or engages in sin will eventually be very low on (or entirely bereft of) those people that belong to the true church—the sheep who hear the voice of the Shepherd and follow Him (John 10:27) The true church is the bride of Christ (Revelation 21:2, 9; 22:17) and the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12; 1 Corinthians 12:27). It cannot be contained, walled in, or defined by anything other than its love for Christ and its dedication to Him. 9inches: |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 6:06am On Mar 24, 2018 |
I thought you had all the answers, this is why I have applied, and returned your call.. 9inches: |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 6:08am On Mar 24, 2018 |
brocab:The early Church was structured in a hierarchical manner as it is today. We see in Acts, chapter 15 how the apostles and the elders came together under the leadership of St. Peter to decide the question of what was required of Gentiles. We also see how St. Peter was regarded as the head of the Church when St. Paul, "Went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and remained with him fifteen days." (Galatians 1:18) There is no Scriptural evidence of independent local churches. The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally. Every other church traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years. God rules, instructs and sanctifies His people through His Church. Under her teaching office, the Catholic Church preserves the Word of God. She is the custodian, keeper, dispenser and interpreter of teachings of Christ. And she accomplishes this under the protection of the Holy Spirit. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 6:10am On Mar 24, 2018 |
brocab:The catholic church has all the answers. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 6:27am On Mar 24, 2018 |
In what way have they the answers? 9inches: |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 6:31am On Mar 24, 2018 |
We see bible verses, but out of that, I don't read where the Catholic Church comes into place.. Church of believers coming together under one fellowship, in one accord. Where does the protestants stand with the Catholic's, and when do we agree upon the Word of God? And when did the Catholic's agree with Peter's teachings, and don't agree upon the Word of God the protestants speak off... 9inches: |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by shadeyinka(m): 6:45am On Mar 24, 2018 |
9inches:I don't care is not the same as I dont know about. Inquisition probably was one of those traditions God helped to exterminate. We would still have been doing it now. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 6:48am On Mar 24, 2018 |
brocab:It is the original church of the apostles. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 6:50am On Mar 24, 2018 |
brocab:The protestants speak a mixture of the word of God and that of Martin Luther. They don't accept the sacred tradition like Timothy and the Thessalonians did. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 1:27pm On Mar 24, 2018 |
https://www.catholic.com/ Was James The Real Leader of the Early Church? Carl Olson September 02, 2010 SHARE 1222 The 15th chapter of Acts is significant for its description of the first council of the Christian Church, providing insights into the inner workings of the early Church and the relationships among key leaders. The chapter is also notable as a battleground for ongoing, current-day disputes over Church authority. On one side stands the Catholic Church, upholding Peter as the foremost apostle and leader of the universal Church. In opposition, in a diverse array of attitudes, stands a host of scholars and theologians who claim that James, the “brother of Jesus” (Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19), was the leader of the early Church, perhaps even the first pope. This position has roots going back to the Reformation, and many Protestants—whether they be conservative, liberal, or progressive in theological terms—consider James the greatest of the early Church leaders. James, Greater than Peter? Since the late 1990s, several books have been written about James, the “brother of Jesus,” most notably Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Columbia, SC: University of South Caroline Press, 1997), by John Painter; James, Brother of Jesus (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1996), by Pierre-Antoine Bernheim; and James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Viking Press, 1997), by Robert Eisenman. All three authors write about the “minimizing” of James by early Church writers and authorities, and either overtly or implicitly claim James was the victim of Church politics aimed at keeping Peter’s pre-eminence intact. Bernheim, for example, states, Acts and the Letter to the Galatians attribute considerable authority to James, seemingly greater than that of Peter. Questions of power and authority in the primitive church are of more than academic interest, since the Roman Catholic Church bases the supremacy of the pope, the Bishop of Rome, on the primacy of Peter. According to Catholic doctrine, Peter, who was designated the foundation and the ultimate authority of the apostolic Church (Matthew 16:13-20) maintained his primacy throughout his life and transmitted it to his successors as bishops of Rome. (James, Brother of Jesus, 191) Bernheim is correct to note the importance of {Matthew 16} in the matter of Petrine authority. But does Acts 15 contradict the famous “keys of the kingdom” passage and even portray James as a greater authority than Peter? Pentecostal author Rosanna J. Evans makes such a case in her booklet, “Crossing The Threshold of Deception”: Among the more compelling arguments [for Peter not being pope], is that of the leadership at the Jerusalem Council. . . . What is of interest here, is not necessarily the proclamations made at this council, but the conspicuous position (or lack thereof) Peter held. While he was, without doubt, present at this momentous council, he certainly did not preside over it; this honor went to James, not Peter. Additionally, although Peter had some say in the procession itself, it was James, not Peter, who decided the outcome of the deliberations . . . Without a doubt, the man James was the one who presided over the Jerusalem Council. (18, 19) In his commentary on Acts, Evangelical scholar I. Howard Marshall presents Peter as a central but still lesser authority than James, a perspective held by numerous Evangelical commentators. While Peter appealed to experience, Marshall states, “The decisive voice in the meeting, however, lay neither with Peter nor with the delegates from Antioch, but with James. This may have been due partly to the position which he increasingly came to hold as the foremost leader in the church (12:17), and partly also to the fact that he was regarded as a champion of a conservative Jewish outlook” (Acts, 249, 251). Was Peter really inconspicuous at the Jerusalem Council? Did he take a secondary role to James? What does the text really say? Context and Choices In the 1973 book Peter in the New Testament, published as a “collaborative assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars” and sponsored by the United States Lutheran–Roman Catholic Dialogue as Background for Ecumenical Discussions of the Role of the Papacy in the Universal Church, three basic theories of early Church authority based upon Acts 15 are presented. The three theories of authority are: 1) Peter and the other members of the twelve were concerned with a Christian mission far more extensive than just Jerusalem. They were never really local church leaders, once Jerusalem became big enough to require such caretakers. James was the first leader of the local church at Jerusalem (at least for the Hebrew Christians) and remained there after Peter and the other members of the twelve left the scene, whether through death or on travels. James had authority only in Jerusalem (and its “province”), but his name was known more widely because he was a blood relative of Jesus. Paul’s loyalty was to the “mother church” or community of saints in Jerusalem. His respect for James was a respect for the local leader of that church. 2) Peter was a local leader at Jerusalem (even though he was known more widely because he had been a close follower of Jesus during the ministry). James took Peter’s place as the local Jerusalem leader (when Peter left Jerusalem or even earlier). Neither of them had a role as leader in the Universal Church, for, in fact, there was no single leader in the Universal Church. 3) Peter was a universal leader, operating from Jerusalem as the center of Christianity, and was succeeded by James. In other words, the position of universal influence that Peter had at Jerusalem (except his apostleship) was transferred to James when Peter left Jerusalem or even earlier. The first theory aligns essentially with the Catholic belief; the second covers a wide range of mainline Protestant perspectives; and the third—the most extreme view—is embraced by more radical, liberal scholars. Acts 15 can be broken into four basic sections. 1} The first (vs. 1-5) sets the scene and explains the conflict between Gentile and Jewish Christians over the observance of various Mosaic customs and laws. 2} The second (vs. 6-18)—the section that concerns us here—contains the discussion, including debate (v. 7a), Peter’s speech (vs. 7b-11), the witness of Paul and Barnabas (v. 12), and James’ speech (vs. 13-21). 3} The third section (vs. 19-29) explains the decision reached at the council, including the letter to be sent to the churches. 4}The final section (vs. 30-35) presents some of the reaction to the letter. The council consisted of “the apostles and the elders” who had gathered together to “look into the matter” and come to some sort of solution. The Catholic understanding is that this gathering was a blueprint and prototype for future Church councils. As such, it included the gathering of leaders from the entire Church, not just a particular region; it made decrees binding on all Christians; it addressed matters of faith and morals; and it issued documents recording essential statements, decrees, canons, and so forth. Finally, but certainly not least, it was presided over by the pope (either in person or by representative) The Jerusalem Council began with a spirited debate (v. 7a). Then Peter spoke, appealing to the “early days” and his experience in bringing the gospel to the household of Cornelius, a Gentile (Acts 10). We are saved by grace, Peter stated, not by works of the Law (v. 11). A marked silence followed his speech (v. 12a). Then Barnabas and Paul testified to God’s work “among the Gentiles” (v. 12b). After they had finished, James gave his speech, pointing to both the words of Peter (“Simeon,” v. 14) and the Prophets (vs. 15-18). He then offered his “judgment”: the Gentiles would not have to observe the ceremonial Law. An authoritative letter was then written, stating “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us to lay upon you no greater burden” than abstaining from “things sacrificed to idols,” from blood and things strangled, and “from fornication” (vs. 28-29). Unlikely Allies As noted already, the Fundamentalist anti-Catholic position is that Peter’s role at the council was so minimal he was essentially persona non grata. Noted anti-Catholic and Presbyterian theologian Loraine Boettner wrote the following in his Roman Catholicism: At that council not Peter but James presided and announced the decision with the words, “Wherefore my judgement is . . .” (vs. 19). And his judgement was accepted by the apostles and presbyters. Peter was present, but only after there had been “much questioning” (vs. 7) did he even so much as express an opinion. He did not attempt to make any infallible pronouncements although the subject under discussion was a vital matter of faith. In any event it is clear that the unity of the early church was maintained not by the voice of Peter but by the decision of the ecumenical council which was presided over by James, the leader of the Jerusalem church. (116) Ironically, the Fundamentalist view of Peter and James is very similar to that of the liberal and radical scholars. The same anti-Catholic, anti-authoritarian sentiment runs through their writings. They even use some of the same arguments, particularly an appeal to Galatians 2 as the final say about Peter’s role in the early Church. Martin Hengel, in Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, clearly thinks James was the leader of the early Church while Peter either faded or fled. After the withdrawal of the “twelve,” James, at the head of the elders, was able to take over complete control of the Jerusalem community. Given this situation in Jerusalem, the only possibility for Peter . . . was to move out into the Greek-speaking Diapora, where we can see his activity in Antioch and Rome, and at least his influence in Corinth. . . . Nevertheless, the succession of apostles and elders marks inner changes in the Jerusalem community which resulted in James and the elders taking over the leadership, gradually suppressing Peter and the older group of apostles . . . (96-96, 115) John Painter, the author of Just James, also appeals to Galatians 2 as the final court of appeal regarding Peter and James, saying that “it is likely that James was the first leader of the Jerusalem church” and, In Acts Luke tries to reconcile conflicts and to reconcile the later tradition of Petrine leadership in the church at large with the tradition of the original leadership of James in Jerusalem. This strategy is possible because of the authority of James over Peter, even exercised at a distance, is demonstrated in {Galatians 2:11-14} and there is no reason to think that the situation was different at the beginning of the Jerusalem church. (84) It is Bernheim, however, who appears most driven to discredit the Catholic Church’s claim to authority by showing Peter’s utter submission before James. James’s “dominant position” is fully realized at the council, he argues. “Regardless of the historicity of Acts 15, James, by speaking last, summing up the discussion and proposing the decision which figures in the Apostolic Decree, appears as the one who presided over the assembly” (193). Bernheim continually questions the authenticity of Jesus’ words in Matthew 16, but has no problem building the vast majority of his case from the incident in Galatians 2. He arbitrarily makes a convenient distinction between authority among the disciples before and after Christ’s death, claiming that Peter’s leadership dissolved following the death of Jesus and that the early Christians broke into small, competing groups in the aftermath of the Crucifixion. As usual, an assault on the continuity of early Church authority is meant to undermine the papacy and the magisterium today. Petrine Primacy in Acts. The Catholic claim that Peter was the first pope is not based on sola scriptura, selective use of Scripture, or just a single passage of Scripture. (See “Beyond Matthew 16:18,” page 30.) As for Acts 15, a number of factors point to Peter actually being both the leader at the council and the leader of the early Church. First, there is the manner in which his speech begins and ends. By standing up to speak after the debate had subsided, Peter made an emphatic physical gesture affirming his authority and centrality. The silence afterwards indicated the finality of what Peter had just said; no one disputes either his speech or his right to make it. In fact, the witness of Paul and Barnabas, along with James’s speech, only reinforce and agree with what Peter says. Secondly, few non-Catholic commentators seem to notice the striking wording Peter used in his speech. If he was only a witness, wouldn’t he have appealed only to his experience? But while Peter did focus on his experience, the main object of his speech was God: “God made a choice among you, that by my mouth . . .”; “And God . . . bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit”; “He made no distinction”; and “why therefore do you put God to the test?” (vs. 7-10). It is readily apparent that Peter was quite comfortable in being a spokesman for God. Even James seems to take this for granted by stating, “Simeon has related how God first concerned himself . . .” (v. 14). There is an immediacy to Peter’s relating of God’s work which is noticeably absent from James’s speech. As mentioned, Paul, Barnabas, and James all reinforced and agreed with Peter’s declaration, albeit in different ways. The first two related “the signs and wonders God” had been working “among the Gentiles” (v. 12). James pointed first to the words of Peter and then to the Prophets (vs. 14-15). Those who claim James’s speech was the definitive one point to the language in verse 19 (“Therefore it is my judgement . . .”) as evidence for James’s primacy. Yet James is simply suggesting a way of implementing what Peter had already definitively expressed. “Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church,” state Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “He formulates a doctrinal judgment about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side (15:13-21)” (232). Problems with Authority, One can only conclude that those commentators and scholars who take issue with Peter’s primacy have, for various reasons, taken an anti-Catholic, anti-papal stance. They labor under a skewed understanding of what the papacy is and how the papal office relates to the Church as a whole. As a result, they are prone to interpret Peter’s actions and the history of the early Church incorrectly. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 1:29pm On Mar 24, 2018 |
The truth is, just like Martin Luther, I believe and solemnly am filled with the Holy Spirit to preach the Word of God. I don't come to you, with your doctrine, I myself, Peter and Paul have come to you preaching the doctrine of Christ. But you have come to me preaching another doctrine, concerning the tradition of men. {Galatians 2:7-9} Amplified Bible (AMP) "But on the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised (Gentiles),just as Peter had been [entrusted to proclaim the gospel] to the circumcised (Jews) (For He who worked effectively for Peter and empowered him in his ministry to the Jews also worked effectively for me and empowered me in my ministry to the Gentiles). Which means, Peter wasn't empowered more then the others to do their ministry, no-one is greater then the least, "Peter filled with the Holy Spirit, proclaimed the Word of God to the Jews, "Is the Catholic Church claiming to be Jewish, or Did Paul who was also filled with the same Holy Spirit-preached the truth to the Gentiles? And recognizing the grace [that God had] bestowed on me, James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars [of the Jerusalem church], gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we could go to the Gentiles [with their blessing] and they to the circumcised (Jews) 9inches: |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 2:34pm On Mar 24, 2018 |
brocab:And what's your argument here? |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by Nobody: 8:52pm On Mar 24, 2018 |
[quote author=9inches post=66015578]Pay attention! It wasn’t intended to be an instructional tool for converts or non-believers. The Old Testament books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already were Christians. Timothy knew the scripture from infancy, that was why Paul was giving him direct instructions. On the other hand, nobody wrote any letter or gave any instruction directly to the eunuch. Just likethe old testament wasn't written to Jews alone. The new testament is not for Christians alone. I want to ask you what is scripture? Why did Philip instruct the enuch from the old testament? Why did he not say to him the that scripture is not for him? The scripture is useful to you in what way? @ stroked speak for yourself. Tell me one book of the scripture that was not specifically written to a particular person or group of persons.the fact that a scripture was written to specific people does not mean it doesnt apply to others. For example Deuteronomy 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. The above scripture was addressed to jews on how to treat their animals. 1Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Paul use used this scripture for Christians also. 1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. who said All of Jesus life was written down. False, a single scripture cannot be used to form doctrine or a single verse. Paul didn't say a single scripture but all scripture. Don't subtract from God's word or add to it. Where did they say they are the same? You will feel ashamed of this your comment in the future.are you now saying Paul preach one thing and did another? 2 Timothy 3:10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, Paul said we shouldn't think of men( botht in doctrine of in actions) above that which is written. Do you agree with him? So anything about the apostles should never go beyond scripture. 1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. if the scripture is not sufficient apostle Paul would have not limited us in assessing men by scripture alone. @bolded- No, I did not say that. That's a straw man argument you're making. What I said essentially is that the written Word of God (scripture) alone is not sufficient; you need both written and unwritten.what is straw man about the word if God? I have addressed this None of the above refutes that the bible is NOT the ONLY rule of faith. Biblical oral tradition is wider in scope than written Scripture. Neither the Bible nor logic require Paul’s oral teaching (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:2, 23, 15:1-3, Gal. 1:9, 12, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:2) to be the same as his written teaching or “forbid” it from containing information not found in his letters.Paul refute your silly claim. Why do I need tradition if I could understand paul's knowledge in the mystery of Christ from what is written? Ephesians 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) This is not possible if Paul didn't write down his complete knowledge. Paul’s oral teaching was obviously harmonious with his teachings preserved in the written text of the Bible; but it also would almost certainly have contained some things not found in Scripture.what are those things not found in scripture can you name them? You are using uncertainty in God's word? God's word is yes and Amen not I m not sure. Scriptures certainly reveals the mind of God. Anything other than this is crap. Remember he argued and reasoned in the synagogues and other public places. The sheer number of his spoken words must have included subject matter either not covered or only touched upon in his New Testament epistles.He taught in one synagogue for “three months” (Acts 19:look up! Paul didn't argue or teach using traditions but using the holy Scripture. Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. Paul had a particular manner of always using the sctipture fot his argument. Lol i guess paul was a protestant heretic. If as a Protestant you claim we are not bound to anything not found in Scripture, why should we think ourselves as bound differently than the earliest Christians, who lived before the New Testament was compiled?the early Christians were sola scripturians to the core. Even Jesus the Son of God based his ministry on scriptures, the apostles. Who is roman idolatry catholic church to oppose and replace scriptures with her filthy and whorish traditions. 1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. @ bold do you know which scripture Paul was talking about? Is this not a strong proof that the new testament was already scripture and when Paul said scripture it meant both old and new testament? |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 10:12pm On Mar 24, 2018 |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 12:59am On Mar 25, 2018 |
solite3:"Pay attention [again]! It wasn’t intended to be an instructional tool for converts or non-believers. I don't speak just for myself, I speak objectively. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. the fact that a scripture was written to specific people does not mean it doesnt apply to others. For example@bolded, thank you for defeating your argument! See why context matters a lot while interpreting the bible? Something not thought in protestant churches. who said All of Jesus life was written down.Being that about 17 books of the New Testament, including the 4 gospels talk about Jesus' life, this is to evidence to show you they did not write down in the scripture everything they knew and preached. There was nothing like bible until mid second century. The Corinthians did not have letters written to the Thessalonians and vice versa. But they all received sound oral teaching from the apostles; the letters was written to supplement the oral teachings. So my dear, it's not about thumping the bible which the Catholic Church has done the work of compiling and canonizing it for you; but you don't want to know how it came about or who has the sole to interpret it. @bolded, so how many do you need to form a doctrine? are you now saying Paul preach one thing and did another?Again, you're ripping 2 Timothy 3:10 out of context! When will you learn? That was Paul talking to Timothy who of course was his son in faith and have been around him to learn and understudy him. You don't know jack about Paul compared to what Timothy knew about him. For 1 Cor. 4:6, it's clear from the context that he was referring to the Old Testament because the Corinthians had as yet no New Testament Scriptures, 1 Corinthians being the very first letter Paul had sent them. Prior to this letter all his teaching had been oral. Paul was on his third missionary journey and staying in Ephesus when he received a letter from Corinth concerning problems within the church and asking for Paul's instruction. His response was this First Letter to the Corinthians, written in about 54 AD. Note this: Paul remained in Ephesus teaching the faith so diligently that "all the inhabitants of the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord" (Acts 19:10), he says "I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God" (Acts 20:27). Paul spent over two years in Ephesus doing all that, yet his epistle to the Ephesians is a scant 4 or 5 pages and could not even begin to touch upon all the doctrines he taught them orally." More so, none of the figureheads (Reformers) of sola scriptura even attempted to use this 1 Cor. 4:6 to vindicate sola scriptura. In fact, John Calvin says Paul's use of the phrase "what is written" is probably either a reference to the Old Testament verses he quotes within his epistle or to the epistle itself. Not only did Calvin not see in 1 Corinthians any support for sola scriptura, a theory he vociferously promoted, he regarded the verse as obscure at best and of negligible value in the effort to vindicate Protestantism. If Paul in saying "do not go beyond what is written" was teaching sola scriptura, he would have been advocating 1 of the 4 principles below which are inconsistent with the rest of his theology: PRINCIPLES 1. Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings. No Protestant would agree with option one, that the Old Testament is a sufficient authority in matters of doctrine. 2. Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56). This would mean all New Testament books written after the year 56 would not qualify under the 1 Corinthians 4:6 guideline. 3. Accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written. This option also fails because in order for sola scriptura to be a "biblical" doctrine there must be, by definition, at least one bible verse which says Scripture is sufficient, or that oral Tradition is to be disregarded once Scripture has supplanted it, or that Scripture is superior to oral Tradition. But there are no such verses; and as we see, 1 Corinthians 4:6 is no exception. 4. the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing. This fourth option is likewise untenable because it contradicts Paul's express command in to "Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess. 2:15). Thus, for 1 Corinthians 4:6 to support the theory of sola scriptura, Paul would have been talking out of both sides of his mouth, on one side demanding adherence to the written word only, and on the other urging fastidious adherence to both written and oral tradition. Also, none of the other apostles taught sola scriptura. In fact, John said, "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face" (3 John 13). Why would the apostle emphasize his preference for oral Tradition over written Tradition (a preference he reiterates in 2 John 12) if, as proponents of sola scriptura assert, Scripture is superior to oral Tradition? The already flimsy case for sola scriptura is further weakened by the fact that most of the apostles never wrote a single line of Scripture; instead they transmitted the deposit of faith orally. Did their oral teachings carry any less weight of authority than the written teachings of Paul or Peter or John? look up! Paul didn't argue or teach using traditions but using the holy Scripture.@bolded, what do you mean by "using tradition" what Holy Scripture was he teaching them at around 54 AD? the early Christians were sola scripturians to the core. Even Jesus the Son of God based his ministry on scriptures, the apostles. Who is roman idolatry catholic church to oppose and replace scriptures with her filthy and whorish traditions.I already debunked the sola scriptura argument above. Moreover, you have nothing to back up such a senseless claim. Have you heard about the New Law (the Law of Christ)? Jesus introduces himself as a standard for love while the Old Law had been "as you love yourself". The New Commandmant goes beyond "as you love yourself" as found in the ethic of reciprocity and states "as I have loved you", using the Love of Christ for his disciples as the new model. And this is the basis of Christian Ethics. Hence, 1 John 4:19 states "We love, because he first loved us." To bury your silly argument: Jesus says, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:33–35). 1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.I already said this few pages back. 9inches:Out of these 13 books, Paul wrote about 10 of them. It's not a strong proof of anything beyond the time it was written. Refer to the 4 PRINCIPLES above. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by Nobody: 6:05am On Mar 25, 2018 |
9inches:It wasn't intended for non Jews but it was used by the apostles for non Jews. Jesus didn't come for non Jews but was preached to the gentiles It is God's will that both Jews and gentiles have the scripture. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 2:14pm On Mar 25, 2018 |
solite3:Now you agree with me! It is God's will that both Jews and gentiles have the scripture.@bolded, you can't prove that from the scripture. Matthew 10:5-7, These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.’" Can you explain this passage? I'm not yet saying it means anything, I want to know your understanding of it. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by stanbillion200(m): 5:31pm On Mar 25, 2018 |
kevoh:What a touching comment! 1 Like |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 9:25pm On Mar 25, 2018 |
{Luke 9:1-3} Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. And He said to them, “Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece. Not only the 12 disciples-how about the 70-72 Jesus sent out.. {Luke 10:1-2} After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. 9inches:{Galatians 2:6-8} But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised {Gentiles} had been committed to me {Paul} as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles) Meaning both Peter and Paul received the Holy Spirit preaching the gospel to the nations-baptizing everyone who have chosen to believe in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Which again it leaves us with the question? If Peter spoke only to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles, then where do you fit in 'all this, is the Catholic Church now Jewish, that they need to fellow the traditions of the Mosaic laws, males must be circumcised before becoming Catholic through baptism.. 9inches: 1 Like |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 10:48pm On Mar 25, 2018 |
brocab: You have a problem with comprehension. You have abandoned your own argument and now weighing in on another person's. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 10:50pm On Mar 25, 2018 |
kevoh:Are you judging the existence of God off people's actions? |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 10:53pm On Mar 25, 2018 |
https://www.catholic.com/ "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome. Can Infants Be "Born Again"? The Catholic's believe circumcision and baptism is this below.. {Leviticus 12:2-3}“Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male child, she shall be [ceremonially] unclean for seven days, unclean as during her monthly period. On the eighth day the flesh of the male child’s foreskin shall be circumcised. Of course we can expect infants to say a few words, just after their circumcision, just through their suffering they are repenting from their guiltless sinless nature. This is how dangerous this doctrine is, circumcise or baptising infants won't save them, Catholic's claiming to be baptised, have falling sort from God. Jesus's kingdom is not of this world, and yet wrong teaching have caused Catholic's to live, just as the world lives. When Peter delivered his sermon after Pentecost, he told the people to "repent and be baptized." So why does the Church baptize babies? If you get baptized without repenting, you’re just a wet sinner. The question is not merely about the time that baptism should be administered, but about the very nature of the sacrament. So if the question of infant baptism comes up, it is wise to discuss baptismal regeneration first. The Catholic understanding is that baptism is a sign that effects what it symbolizes, bringing about several things. One of these effects is regeneration—God’s very life comes into the person, taking away the guilt of original sin and infusing sanctifying grace into the soul, making the person a new creation. Evangelicals agree that baptism is a sign but not one that communicates grace to the believer. Rather, it symbolizes that the person has already been born again. If baptism is merely a sign that signifies a previous repentance and does nothing to the soul, then babies should not be baptized. But Scripture reveals that baptism does regenerate the soul and so should not withheld from infants. Before giving the supporting evidence for this, it is good to clarify that an adult is not to be baptized without having first repented. The normal process for an adult would be to believe, repent, and then be baptized (see "Of Water and the Spirit," page xx). Since Peter was speaking to adults in the passage quoted above, he said "repent and be baptized." Okay, we’ll deal with baptismal regeneration first. Where is that in the Bible? But where do you see babies being baptized in the New Testament? Before offering biblical evidence that infants should be baptized, notice the presupposition in the above question: "Where is it in the Bible?" The underlying premise is that if X is not explicit in the Bible, then a Christian need not accept X. This idea of sola scriptura must be addressed in your conversations, though only a short treatment can be offered here. The Bible does not explicitly recount children being baptized. Nor does it mention any infants that were refused the sacrament or any children that received it only upon reaching the age of reason. The fact is, Scripture is quiet about babies and baptism. For this reason, Protestantism is divided over the matter. {Martin} Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Methodists baptize infants, while Baptists, Pentecostals, and most non-denominational churches do not. All of the above groups believe that the Bible is the only rule of faith, but they have come to different conclusions on infant baptism. This is a good time to point out that the Bible commands Christians to hold fast to apostolic traditions that are not written down (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. The Bible does provide some indication that babies are to be baptized, though. When a person was converted, it is often said that his entire household was baptized (Acts 16:16,33; 1 Cor. 1:16). The Greek word for household is oikos, which can include infants. Also, it is worthwhile to examine the connection between circumcision and baptism. In the Old Testament, circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant. On the eighth day after a boy’s birth, his parents would have him circumcised, bringing him into the covenant with God. In {Colossians 2:11–12} Paul indicates that baptism had replaced circumcision. The important difference is that while circumcision could not save a person {Gal. 5:6, 6:15} "Baptism . . . now saves you" The Catholic's believe {1 Pet. 3:21} So, if a parent could bring an infant into the family of God through circumcision under the Old Covenant, why would God exclude infants from the family of God under the New Covenant? {1 Peter 3:21} Corresponding to that [rescue through the flood], baptism [which is an expression of a believer’s new life in Christ] now saves you, not by removing dirt from the body, but by an appeal to God for a good (clear) conscience, [demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These are the words of Peter after Pentecost, but very little attention is paid to the fact that he extends a "promise" to the children. {Acts 2:38–39} "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children"For the promise [of the Holy Spirit] is for you and your children and for all who are far away [including the Gentiles], as many as the Lord our God calls to Himself. ” The Catholic's believe Infant baptism is a practice of apostolic origin. Catholics do admit that in the third century there was a debate over infant baptism. Cyril records the disagreement: "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]). You can see that the debate was not about whether or not to baptize infants; the issue was whether to wait until the eighth day to baptize a child as was the practice with circumcision {Leviticus 12:2-3} “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male child, she shall be [ceremonially] unclean for seven days, unclean as during her monthly period. On the eighth day the flesh of the male child’s foreskin shall be circumcised. The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome. As Cyril mentioned, the Church rejected the innovation of Fidus to delay baptism. The apostolic practice had already been firmly passed on, as was recorded by Hippolytus in A.D. 215: "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). Of course we can expect infants to say a few words, just after their circumcision, repenting from their guilt of sin. This is how dangerous this doctrine is, baptising infants won't save them, Catholic's claiming to be baptised, have falling sort from God. Jesus's kingdom is not of this world, and yet wrong teaching have caused Catholic's to live, just as the world lives. Origin also mentions that in the year 248 infant baptism was nothing new: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9) Therefore, since we have now been justified [declared free of the guilt of sin] by His blood, [how much more certain is it that] we will be saved from the wrath of God through Him. So basically it isn't about the truth, it's about tradition, the Catholic's believe the apostles taught, without any bible references to back it up. This isn't bible knowledge this is from "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 11:44pm On Mar 25, 2018 |
Since this page is open for us to enjoy it, I thought since there's an open door for me to show you the Word of God, and also it gives you the opportunity to look up on the scriptures yourself, because you didn't know the answer-I thought I would support you, by responding to your call. Jesus didn't only send out the 12-but also the 70-72 disciples out into the wildness, preparing the way for the Lord. And plus, do we not support each other in Word and in truth? And plus do you like my findings above, the Catholic's believe circumcision is Baptism? And it still leaves you with the answer-of no return {Galatians 2:6-8} But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised {Gentiles} had been committed to me {Paul} as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles) Meaning both Peter and Paul received the Holy Spirit preaching the gospel to the nations-baptizing everyone who have chosen to believe in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Which again it leaves us with the question? If Peter spoke only to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles, then where do you fit in 'all this, is the Catholic Church now Jewish, that they need to fellow the traditions of the Mosaic laws, males must be circumcised before becoming Catholic through baptism.. 9inches: |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 2:41am On Mar 26, 2018 |
brocab: Since you want to help solite3, the question was to explain the following statement. "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by Nobody: 3:27am On Mar 26, 2018 |
[quote author=9inches post=66143381]agree with you in what way? @bolded, you can't prove that from the scripture.if God didn't want the gentiles to have the scriptures the holy Spirit would have not petmited philip to instruct the eunch from scripture and the apostles wouldn't have taught using scriptures. Matthew 10:5-7, These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.’"that was before the Jews rejected Jesus. Can you explain this passage? I'm not yet saying it means anything, I want to know your understanding of it.Romans 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 6:27am On Mar 26, 2018 |
solite3:That the scripture was not intended for non Jews. In fact, you even went the next level to say that Jesus didn't come for non Jews but was preached to the gentiles. That's why reading the scripture in context matters a lot. But it's not taught in protestant churches because of man-made (Martin Luther) doctrine. if God didn't want the gentiles to have the scriptures the holy Spirit would have not petmited philip to instruct the eunch from scripture and the apostles wouldn't have taught using scriptures.I said prove it from the scripture (a.k.a, where is it in the bible?) that was before the Jews rejected Jesus.I don't quite get it. Is that the interpretation? Romans 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:So what did Jesus mean in Matthew 10:5-7? |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by Nobody: 5:19pm On Mar 26, 2018 |
[quote author=9inches post=66160256]Yes Jesus was to be preached to Jews only not gentiles. That is what I meant, the old testament is for the Jews but the bible old testament was written for all. I said prove it from the scripture (a.k.a, where is it in the bible?)prove what from the bible? 1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. I don't quite get it. Is that the interpretation?it is not surprising that you don't know. Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. So what did Jesus mean in Matthewgo back to my previous post. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by brocab: 10:36pm On Mar 26, 2018 |
The answer is starring at you to your face, and still you want the answers, read the scriptures, before and after. Not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. 9inches:You just need to study up on the scriptures, to find out why the Gentiles were taught about God in the first place-and why God allowed Saul {Paul} preach to the Samaritans {Gentiles} it was because of the hardness of heart from the Jews. The story about Jesus talking with a Samaritan Woman-a Gentile at the well-The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he. She already believed Jesus is coming to the gentiles, before Jesus spoke to her at the well.. Saul also believed Jesus in Spirit and fell to the ground "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? In the Bible, the Lord Jesus commissioned him to take the gospel to the Gentiles {Acts 9:1–19} Don't forget-Saul and Barnabas came after the first 12-{Acts 13:2-3} As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. Saul and Barnabas Job ended up preaching to the Gentiles, because of the Jewish disbelief. {Acts 13:42-48} So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’ Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Not only to the Jews in Israel, but also to the Gentiles, because of the Jewish disbelief.. {Galatians 2:6-8} But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—{The Catholic's believe God gave personal favoritism only to Peter, but of course the bible said: no-man receives personal favoritism} for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised {Gentiles} had been committed to me {Paul} as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles) Meaning both Peter and Paul received the Holy Spirit preaching the gospel to the nations-baptizing everyone who have chosen to believe in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. {Again this questions the infant baptism} Peter preached to the Jews, Paul preached to the Gentiles, If it wasn't for the Lord to send Paul to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, then you, nor I, are worthy to speak about the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob. It is quite sad how you have treated Solite3, who is my brother in Christ, because we both believe the scriptures, and of course you wouldn't accept Solite3, nor do you accept I, as your brother, only because we are aliens to your doctrines, and Jesus said: His kingdom is not of this world. And if you can't believe the scriptures, then who can teach you. 9inches: |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 1:24am On Mar 27, 2018 |
solite3: solite3: solite3:Where God/Jesus said the gentiles should have the scriptures. solite3:I asked you to explain Matthew 10:5-7, and you replied "that was before the Jews rejected Jesus." So I ask if that is your interpretation of the verses. Why not explain the verses rather than sidestepping it? solite3:You didn't explain it. |
| Re: Pentecostal Getting Married To A Catholic by 9inches(m): 1:33am On Mar 27, 2018 |
brocab: I did not ask you to quote and explain another verse. I only asked you to explain Matthew 10:5-7 only. What did Jesus mean by that statement where He excluded the Gentiles? |
, and in one location “daily” for two years (Acts 19:10). This was all oral teaching
And you expect an atheist to take you guys serious?(1) (2) (3) ... (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) ... (38) (Reply)
New Age Teachings Of Pastor Chris Oyakhilome. Is It Right? / Rape Allegation: Nigerians Protest At COZA Church (Live Updates) / Female Preacher's Dress To A Birthday Party: Anything Wrong With It?
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 232 |