History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

[Cis.jd]

If this is truly a proof text that there are other critical teachings other than what we have in the OT and NT then you should be able to list what these 1st century traditions were that Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude fail to mention.

I have mentioned it many times. The canon. Do you see any where in the bible that mentions the names of what books are canon? You don't. Paul, Peter, James, don't mention any names or even give the actual total of inspired books. The word "Holy Trinity" is also not there, and I've referenced how the first christians during Nero believed this even with out the Bible. These were all teachings that were taught by the apostles taught

Perhaps you know the first day of the week is when the NT Church met.
Muslims, JWs and Mormons are not Chrisrians so not seeing your point.

Yup, just based on your response on the previous quote, you clearly just skimmed and did not understand what you read. Please don't hit the quote button and just respond after skimming each quote block. Have some respect and just read first. You would have seen the point of that because it is so easy to understand.

Testing all against the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures is exactly what souls did in the OT and NT.

Jesus even instructed His disciples the following:
snip

Yup, not reading carefully again. How does this, as well as the verses you put some how dispute this fact.
It's ironic seeing that your doctrines where all produced after the 1600's -each of them being a reformed doctrine of whatever protestant denomination -yet here you are pointing fingers at the RC and EO for "later developments in doctrines".

Your doctrine from whatever denomination you are from was born after the 1600's, all the traditions you criticized as later installments are almost shared with all the older denominations including the first protestants. So what i am saying in my quote is that you have very little credibility in telling any of us about later doctrinal installments since again your was made after 1600's (probably even later depending on what denomination you are). Yet this is your reply, and you don't see how far off it is?

All the apostles are deceased and present with the Lord. You listed cultists who appeal to themselves as authoritative. These cults also teach you have to be a part of their cult to be saved. I'd be careful with this line of argument.

The one in bold is of importance. I've asked before, if you believe that the last written revelation of God ceased from the last Apostle (who we believe is John - Revelations) therefore no new books can be added or removed. The NT is 27 only.

Now the reason why those cultists are mentioned is because they were former protestants who had the same form of reasoning and arguments you are giving now. Look at what happens when the Church isn't there and they all go by this same Sola Scriptura reasoning you are giving - you end up with men like Felix Manalo and Joseph Smith. If you actually read the link that I gave about him, he was a former protestant. He moved from various denominations, and from reading the Bible he believed that every denomination (including yours) wasn't following what Scripture truly said.. so he makes a religion in where Jesus is no longer God and he has all these verses for it. Him and his followers all think he was a prophet from God sent to correct what the Catholic church lied about.

Now who are you to tell him he is wrong about adding a new book, since the Bible doesn't even mention that the canon is only 27? Jesus did say this neither did his apostles in the scriptures.

One of the arguments Felix Manalo guy is that neither Jesus or his apostles taught about him being God, those where just verses put in by the catholic church? So how do you prove that wrong? You can't use the scriptures for his divinity anymore, because they all believe they are all lies from Catholics. The way they can be refuted is through my arguments about how the 1st christians during the time of Nero were documented to be worshiping Jesus in their prison cells. They did not have the NT back then, so it shows these were not Catholic interpolations. You see the importance of apostolic tradition?

Your beliefs of the canon being a closed canon is all taught from the Catholic church, you just didn't realize it till now. IMO, i think you understood the point of me bringing up these cultists but you are just being immature in your attitude and therefore misrepresented intentionally.

I already posted above how Christ opened the minds of the Apostles to Scriptures. So they had Scriptures the OT and proved their truth claims using such along with deeds and clothed in the Power of God.

So does the OT mention that Matt-Rev is the true and only canon of the NT? Did the OT also give Luke the details about Jesus' life?

How do you know the above? Is it because someone wrote it down?

Yes, see unlike you I have more than 1 rule of faith. You only have 1. Catholics believe the scriptures and the church are the rules of faith, not scripture alone.

The next time you debate Muslims ask them how many separate witnesses were there to the writing of the Qur'an. It proves the Deity of Christ which is the entry argument to show them the Biblical texts for the Trinity snip.

Every pro-Jesus is God verse pulled on them is replied with "that is all interpolated by the Catholic Church". Once that is done they then blame Paul and that he made the lies. What can your sola scriptura do now?

The apostles wrote the NT. So the people actually had them present. We know this because they wrote to churches.

Now you are answering by guessing off the top of your head. Nero's reign was 37ad-68ad. There was no NT present yet. The only thing we had were Paul's epistles and yet not every christian church could logically have that. You are actually insulting Christianity to be that feeble minded that it's believers required a book to learn their beliefs and that it wasn't first hand or personally taught to them. Good job unintentionally knowing that you've validated the logical fallacies that Atheists use against christianity. I know it wasn't intentional, but this time think of your answers carefully and not spam reply.

I think Irenaeus explained that to us no? The rule of faith or creed was the basis of belief for the church as it grew up with the actual writings.

So you are just ignoring the other things Irenaeus said, and just want to stretch out his point to fit your failed argument? You were given more references for Irenaeus' messages about how the Church has to teach the scriptures as well as being hypothetical by asking what if the scriptures didn't exist?

In fact, before replying to this quote block. Why not answer that question Irenaeus gave, "what if the apostles didn't give us the scriptures"? Find the quote of that so you can reply in context.

Plus look at the early church writings themselves. They are full of NT references well before the NT canon

Yes, just like now the early christians rely on two rules of faith the NT and the church. The christians who date during the 2nd century (as to what your link shows) had both, the Christians of the early to mid 1st century did not have an actual NT yet.

But again, how did people discern the teachings of John the Baptist and an itinerant preacher (Jesus) who came from an obscure village and was not sanctioned by the then Jewish magisterium? In fact the then magisterium was in opposition to Him and plotted his arrest and handed Him over to be crucified.

Maybe John the Baptist and Jesus wrote something, and they just believed it, right? Or no. Did John the Baptist and Jesus teach through oral tradition only?

Or are you holding on to the position the NT writings were not authoritative before they became canon?

Nope, that was never my position. It was there was nothing in scripture that tells people about what books should be cannoned as the NT. You see, you are either misrepresenting my views intentionally or you really don't understand any of the arguments.

He is but the prior paragraph outlines what the church believed.

And here we go again with you not doing your part in reading arguments being given to you. In that same writings that you fail to press on (because it ruins your argument). If you read in AH 3.2.2,
he refers to and unbroken chain of Bishops going back to the apostles to verify it was the correct interpretation. Even in AH 3.21.4 he says that the Holy Spirit is present in the church to guide it to the correct interpretation. Irenaeus even explains his belief that there was a living oral tradition with in the Church which attests to the true apostolic interpretation of Scripture.

Maybe listen to one of your own on how silly that is:
We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

Actually, the count i gave comes from the World Christian Encyclopedia. I believe you can find that answered by someone in the comments section.

For Luke he interviewed eyewitnesses. Means those who were still alive interacted with Jesus. Plus the apostles were still around. When do you think the Gospels and NT were written?

Does it matter when they were written in the context of this argument? The fact is, they were not written during the time Luke was making his gospel. He did not use scripture to verify it. The apostles and the people who knew Jesus told him verbally.

 

[redleghunter]

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR ( A.D. 148-155):

"Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles." -----The First Apology 61. (note the last sentence)

Again leaving out the comments before:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true...

CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I appreciate all the posters participation of this thread with all the varying understandings and opinions of the historical and origin of the "born again" movement. However, what I have noticed is that the unbelievers of being born again by Baptismal Regeneration have not (far as I've read, proven through historic writings of the ECF) where any Early Church Fathers taught the modern day Fundamentalist or Evangelical teaching and belief of being "born again", being...... all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior through the recitation of the sinner’s prayer, is to be born again. Which I have yet found in Scripture (the sinners prayer)

It is true that that "all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior through the recitation of the sinner’s prayer" to be born again is not true if meaning coaxing a prayer out of souls in mere intellectual assent to the gospel message (nor is that a true characterization of historical evangelical preaching overall), since there must be conviction by the Holy Spirit, which sound preaching is to be an instrument of.

But regardless what you may find in the marginal uninspired writings of so-called Early Church Fathers, the fact is that what is not taught in Scripture is that all one needs to do in order to be born again is to be baptized as an infant upon the action of another (using proper intent, form and matter) without the Scripturally required (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) personal repentant faith. This (among so many other Catholic distinctives) is simply nowhere seen in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

Nor is seen that of manifestly considering such souls as Ted Kennedy Catholics to be members of the church in life and in death because of that baptism and some nominal profession, despite them being prohomosexual, proabortion public figures.

But despite your not seeing it, what is taught in Scripture is the sinner's prayer, not the coaxing of a mere recitation, but that of convicted souls crying out in faith requests like of "God be merciful to me a sinner," (Luke 18:13) " Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom," (Luke 23:42) "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," (Romans 10:13) "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10:10)

Even before baptism, for it is the evangelical faith which is expressed in baptism which purifies the soul in the "washing of regeneration:"
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:43-48)

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

And note also that in stark contrast to the easy believism of both Catholicism and superficial conversions of so much modern Prot preaching, in the past, in Puritan Protestantism there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy, as described in an account (Adding to the Church - During the Early American Period by Richard Bauckham) of Puritans during the early American period:

“They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation.

Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’”

Meanwhile, the Catholic recourse to the uninspired writings of truth and error of so-called Early Church Fathers as if such is determinitive of what the NT church believed, versus inspired Scripture, is actually an argument against Catholicism.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

And when hit with a CS gas cloud coming out of the EM club, running toward, and through the cloud seems contrary. But holding your breath and running straight through, against the wind, may be the fastest way to breath as well as see more clearly.

Yes, confronting error is the best way to see clear.

 

[Karola]

I appreciate all the posters participation of this thread with all the varying understandings and opinions of the historical and origin of the "born again" movement. However, what I have noticed is that the unbelievers of being born again by Baptismal Regeneration have not (far as I've read, proven through historic writings of the ECF) where any Early Church Fathers taught the modern day Fundamentalist or Evangelical teaching and belief of being "born again", being...... all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior through the recitation of the sinner’s prayer, is to be born again. Which I have yet found in Scripture (the sinners prayer)

I've also noticed by most of the Fundamental and Evangelical posters personal interpretation/understanding of John chapt. 3, is that accepting or "receiving Christ" as one's "personal Lord and Savior" by faith alone is what our Lord meant, and the Sacrament of Baptism is seen as merely a "symbolic" gesture with no inherent spiritual efficacy. Correct?

After reading these posts, I thought it would behoove me to go back to the writings of the earliest Christians and see what they believed/ taught and preached on the Sacrament of Baptism, baptismal regeneration, and infant baptism. I went back to the first 500 yrs.of Christianty that I will now share:



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (c. A.D. 70):

Now let us see if the Lord has been at any pains to give us a foreshadowing of the waters of Baptism and of the cross. Regarding the former, we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Jer 22:13; Isa 16:1-2; 33:16-18; Psalm 1:3-6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, "Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross." Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls. (11:1-10)

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR ( A.D. 148-155):

"Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles." -----The First Apology 61. (note the last sentence)


ST. IRENAEUS (c. A.D. 190):

"And [Naaman] dipped himself...seven times in the Jordan" [2 Kings 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Fragment 34)


TERTULLIAN (c. A.D. 200-206):

A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous.....taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed.....Baptism is itself a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. (On Baptism 1:1; 5:6; 7:2)

...no one can attain salvation without Baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says: "Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life." (On Baptism 12:1)

RECOGNITIONS OF CLEMENT (c. A.D. 221)

"But you will perhaps say, "What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?" In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so ...you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true Prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: "Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water....he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Recognitions 6:9)


ORIGEN ( A.D. 244):

"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 truly food, and My blood is truly drink" [John 6:55]. (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)


I will end the quotes here in the mid- third cent. due to length and will fast forward to St. Fulgence of Ruspe writingsfrom the early sixth century:

"From that time at which our Savior said: "If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven," no one can say, without the sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without Baptism pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and eternal life. Anyone who receives the sacrament of Baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament...

[But one outside the Church] must, therefore, return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of Baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who...remains estranged from the Catholic Church." (The Rule of Faith 43)


If you took the time to read to read the quotes of these ECF, you would notice two things. 1. All these early Christians believed, taught, and preached to be "born again" is to be Baptized. ie.(Baptismal Regeneration) And 2. nowhere in these ECF writings did they teach or preach the modern day Fundamentalist or Evangelical teaching and belief of being "born again", all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as thier personal Lord and Savior through the recitation of the sinner’s prayer, and/or by faith alone.

So to those of you that disagree or reject these writings of the ECF, could you explain why you believe these early Christians, some that were personal witnesses of the Apostles, or only a generation or two away got it all wrong, and why the modern day Fundamentalist and/or Evangelical teaching and belief of being "born again" is not?

But before you do, keep in mind, early Christian history shows these Fathers of the Church spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, defended the Church in apologetic writing and fought the many heresies of the first six centuries of Christianity. These men, also called Apostolic Fathers, gave special witness to the faith, some dying the death of a martyr. Like Jesus who referred to Abraham as a spiritual father (Luke 16: 24) and St. Paul, who referred to himself in the same terms (1 Corinthians 4: 15), the Fathers were zealous for the word of God. Their writings are a testimony to the faith of the early Church. Remember,,This was some fifteen hundred years before the Protestant Reformation.


Have a Blessed day

.

 

[The Barbarian]

I remember people were talking about being born again in 1970. A Gospel song, "Put Your Hand in the Hand," was playing on the radio. The album it was on reached #1 on the Billboard charts in Canada, and #2 in the USA.

Put Your Hand in the Hand

What does it say about being "born again?"

Regardless, if it brings more people to God, it's O.K. If you make it into some kind of idol where men make it into another requirement for salvation, it's then removing people from God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Again leaving out the comments before:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true...

CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)

You might have invoked, Clement (flourished c.80-101 A.D.):

"And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever."

However, as regards John 3:1-7, the reality is that it speaks of two kinds of birth, flesh vs Spirit, (John 3:5) which is in response to Nic's miscomprehension that born again referred to physical birth. And this contrast and mode of teaching is consistent with John 2:20, and John 4:15 and John 4:33, and John 6:34,52 and other places, in which Jews presumed the Lord's enigmatic statements were referring to the physical, but which He used to take them to the spiritual.

However, this is not confirmed by taking the texts in isolation, but in the light of other Scriptures. And while baptism goes together with conversion as the putting on of a ring does in marriage (in Western tradition), and which is a confirmation of the heart, it cannot be said the physical act of baptism is "verily verily" essential for regeneration.

For it is clearly affirmed that believing - that of an effectual faith that effects obedience - is what purifies the heart, and is counted for righteousness (not because the soul has actually become good enough to be with God, as in Catholicism). However, since those who confess Christ (when it means/cost something) testify to the fact of them having saving faith, therefore the promise of salvation is given to those who believe, as well as those who do what faith effects.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:14-16)

Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness was an example of look and live, (Numbers 21:9) thus,
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40)

And this is confirmed by way of contrast,
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. (John 12:40)

(And which discourse (John 12:34b-45, BTW, teaches that the LORD whom Isaiah looked at in Isaiah 6:1 was the Lord Jesus.)

And Acts 10 and 15 again,
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43) And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)

And of course Paul in Romans 4 states,

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (Romans 4:3)

However, confirmation that one is saved is based on what they do, as works by the Spirit have a cause, which is faith, and thus we read,

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:8-10)

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:11-13)

The way I have come to see it, if a man with the heart man believeth unto righteousness then we have Abraham believing God and this being counted for righteousness. But since this spirit of faith confesses the Lord Jesus ("We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak" 2 Corinthians 4:13) therefore we have both "Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed" (and restrained by fear to confess the Lord) and "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

For while it is faith which appropriates justification, to believe means to confess, and on the basis of effectual faith we have the promise of salvation, and by its manifestation the affirmation that one will be saved. He is saved who believes with effectual faith in the heart, and he who will be saved is he who confesses that faith the Lord Jesus, since that is what characterizes saving faith (and penitent confession when convicted or not doing so).

Thus we have the statement,
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

We see this equation in the case of the palsied man on Mark 2, in which since being forgiven equates to healing, thus the Lord says, Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. (Mark 2:9-11)

The forgiveness already took place, and which effected healing, and thus to say "Thy sins be forgiven thee" was to say, "take up thy bed," as the former effected the latter.

Likewise Acts 2:38 promises the Spirit and salvation to those who will confess (by baptism) the Lord Jesus, since this means they do believe, just as Cornelius and company did before they were baptized

But the forgiveness would have taken place even if the man had died that instant, or was trapped in a well and unable to move by restraints.

Likewise while confession as with the mouth in Rm. 10, and by baptism in Mk. 16 (though the two go together) is a condition as to who is promised salvation in the light of their effectual faith, yet rather than justification awaiting expression of faith (though the decision to confess the Lord, as in answering an "altar call" to do so, can be a catalyst for faith to go from the head to the heart, by God's means of grace), this does not exclude from salvation the mute or such who are so incapacitated that they cannot produce a manifestation of faith, however rare that may be, for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness. Yet one who will not confess the Lord Jesus has denied he is a believer.

Even Rome affirms baptism by desire. However, what i have imperfectly expressed above, that of faith in the heart appropriating justification before God, but confession of the Lord Jesus justifying one as being a believer, and thus being a saved soul, is set in contrast to the act of proper baptism effecting regeneration, and thus of justification being on the basis of actually being made good enough to be with God, as in Catholicism.

 

[Fidelibus]

Keep reading your straw man has been addressed.

Call it what you may, but the fact remains, I have yet to see any Fundamental/Evangelical poster show through historic writings, where any Early Church Fathers taught the modern day teaching and belief of being "born again", that being, all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as one's "personal Lord and Savior" by faith alone.

Even St John Chrysostom identified we are justified by faith alone:

He (St.John Chrysostom) also said:

They are citizens of the Church who were wandering in error. They have their lot in RIGHTEOUSNESS who were in the confusion of sin. For not only are they free, but HOLY also; not only holy, but RIGHTEOUS too; not only righteous, but SONS also; not only sons, but HEIRS as well; not only heirs, but BROTHERS even of Christ; not only brothers of Christ, but also co-heirs; not only co-heirs, but His very members; not only His members, but a temple too; not a temple only, but likewise the instruments of the SPIRIT. You see how many are the benefits of BAPTISM, and some think its heavenly GRACE consists ONLY in the remission of sins; but we have enumerated TEN honors. For this reason we baptize even INFANTS, though they are not defiled by sin [or do not have sins]: so that there may be given to them HOLINESS, RIGHTEOUSNESS, ADOPTION, INHERITANCE, BROTHERHOOD with Christ, and that they may be His MEMBERS. (from Baptismal Catecheses 2:4)


Does this sound like being justified by faith alone to you? Or is it your belief what he says here is wrong?

I could show more more if you'd like.

Have a Blessed Day

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Call it what you may, but the fact remains, I have yet to see any Fundamental/Evangelical poster show through historic writings, where any Early Church Fathers taught the modern day teaching and belief of being "born again", that being, all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as one's "personal Lord and Savior" by faith alone.

Call it what you may, but the fact remains, I have yet to see any Catholic show thru wholly inspired historic writings that all one needs to do to be born again is be baptized as an infant upon the action of another (intending to do what the church does, using proper intent, form and matter) without the Scripturally required (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) personal repentant faith.

And call it what you may, but the fact remains that the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) does indeed show that to be born again all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as one's "personal Lord and Savior" by faith alone. Believing that,

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) And therefore being baptized: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47) "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:9)

That you may have yet to see where any Early Church Fathers taught this (not that some did not) is of no consequence as regards its veracity, for you have yet to see where any Early Church Fathers wrote as wholly inspired of God, which class of writings is what the uninspired ECFS and Roman popes must conform to, and not vice versa. Even the veracity of oral apostolic teaching was subject to testing by Scripture as the established transcendent word of God, for Truth-loving noble souls. (Acts 17:11)

 

[redleghunter]

I have mentioned it many times. The canon.

Again, was the canon a declaration of authoritative works or were the works declared authoritative by the church?

The word "Holy Trinity" is also not there

The exact word no. However, the Triune God is evident in Holy Scriptures. I can show you if you want or you can start another thread on 'finding the Trinity in the Bible.' I have some great Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Evangelical resources which can help you with the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity in your debates with Muslims and JWs.

These were all teachings that were taught by the apostles taught

I agree. So does St Athanasius when he quotes the Apostles John and Paul in his homilies.

Yup, just based on your response on the previous quote, you clearly just skimmed and did not understand what you read. Please don't hit the quote button and just respond after skimming each quote block. Have some respect and just read first. You would have seen the point of that because it is so easy to understand.

I don't skim but tend to omit ad hominem type comments to not further contention. Or I just missed the quote and accidentally posted under another quote.

Your doctrine from whatever denomination you are from was born after the 1600's, all the traditions you criticized as later installments are almost shared with all the older denominations including the first protestants. So what i am saying in my quote is that you have very little credibility in telling any of us about later doctrinal installments since again your was made after 1600's (probably even later depending on what denomination you are). Yet this is your reply, and you don't see how far off it is?

See above. The tradition I uphold is the most ancient. Which is the only infallible standard to test truth claims is the wholly Inspired Word of God.

The one in bold is of importance. I've asked before, if you believe that the last written revelation of God ceased from the last Apostle (who we believe is John - Revelations) therefore no new books can be added or removed. The NT is 27 only.

Yes as the standard has been:

OT: Direct words of God (thus saith the Lord) through the prophets and the inspired works of the prophets

NT: Direct words of Christ and the Holy Spirit inspired teachings of His Apostles.

Now the reason why those cultists are mentioned is because they were former protestants who had the same form of reasoning and arguments you are giving now.

Actually, you may have missed it, these cultists demand obedience to their one leader/council or form of magisterium. They prop themselves up as the only purveyors of truth and placing upon the neck a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.

As a Catholic I'd be careful with this line of argument.

Tyranny comes in many forms but we know there can be tyranny of the one or few and tyranny of the masses or many.

Your beliefs of the canon being a closed canon is all taught from the Catholic church, you just didn't realize it till now. IMO, i think you understood the point of me bringing up these cultists but you are just being immature in your attitude and therefore misrepresented intentionally.

Again, we agree the NT canon is closed because Jesus Christ's Apostles who He directly taught are absent from the body and present with the Lord. When the Apostles taught they spoke with authority proving their truth claims with Inspired Holy Scriptures and clothed with the Power of God (miracles included too).

So does the OT mention that Matt-Rev is the true and only canon of the NT? Did the OT also give Luke the details about Jesus' life?

Matthew to Revelation is Holy Spirit revealed inspired Scriptures. For the very reasons I quoted above reference the apostles and also because we find fulfillment of the OT Scriptures in the NT aka the writings of the apostles.

Yes, see unlike you I have more than 1 rule of faith. You only have 1. Catholics believe the scriptures and the church are the rules of faith, not scripture alone.

Here's where we agree. Churches do establish traditions but they must be tested against the only infallible wholly inspired revelation to mankind...The Holy Scriptures.

Here's where we disagree. The only infallible standard to test truth claims is Holy Scriptures. The church being the Body of Christ upholds the Truth (does not create her own, add or subtract). The church is tasked (see Acts 15) to resolve disputes involving faith matters but such must be tested against the Word of God as revealed through God, His prophets, the Divine Logos and His Apostles. In fact what I just wrote was the standard the early church used.

9. Paul himself also — after that the Lord spoke to him out of heaven, and showed him that, in persecuting His disciples, he persecuted his own Lord, and sent Ananias to him that he might recover his sight, and be baptized— preached, it is said, Jesus in the synagogues at Damascus, with all freedom of speech, that this is the Son of God, the Christ. Acts 9:20 This is the mystery which he says was made known to him by revelation, that He who suffered under Pontius Pilate, the same is Lord of all, and King, and God, and Judge, receiving power from Him who is the God of all, because He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Philippians 2:8 And inasmuch as this is true, when preaching to the Athenians on the Areopagus — where, no Jews being present, he had it in his power to preach God with freedom of speech — he said to them: God, who made the world, and all things therein, He, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands; neither is He touched by men's hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He gives to all life, and breath, and all things; who has made from one blood the whole race of men to dwell upon the face of the whole earth, predetermining the times according to the boundary of their habitation, to seek the Deity, if by any means they might be able to track Him out, or find Him, although He be not far from each of us. For in Him we live, and move, and have our being, as certain men of your own have said, For we are also His offspring. Inasmuch, then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold or silver, or stone graven by art or man's device. Therefore God, winking at the times of ignorance, does now command all men everywhere to turn to Him with repentance; because He has appointed a day, on which the world shall be judged in righteousness by the man Jesus; whereof He has given assurance by raising Him from the dead. Acts 17:24, etc. Now in this passage he does not only declare to them God as the Creator of the world, no Jews being present, but that He did also make one race of men to dwell upon all the earth; as also Moses declared: When the Most High divided the nations, as He scattered the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations after the number of the angels of God; but that people which believes in God is not now under the power of angels, but under the Lord's [rule]. For His people Jacob was made the portion of the Lord, Israel the cord of His inheritance. Deuteronomy 32:9 And again, at Lystra of Lycia (Lycaonia), when Paul was with Barnabas, and in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ had made a man to walk who had been lame from his birth, and when the crowd wished to honour them as gods because of the astonishing deed, he said to them: We are men like you, preaching to you God, that you may be turned away from these vain idols to [serve] the living God, who made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein; who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways, although He left not Himself without witness, performing acts of goodness, giving you rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness. Acts 14:15-17 But that all his Epistles are consonant to these declarations, I shall, when expounding the apostle, show from the Epistles themselves, in the right place. But while I bring out by these proofs the truths of Scripture, and set forth briefly and compendiously things which are stated in various ways, do you also attend to them patiently, and not deem them prolix; taking this into account, that proofs [of the things which are] contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.12 (St. Irenaeus)​

Every pro-Jesus is God verse pulled on them is replied with "that is all interpolated by the Catholic Church". Once that is done they then blame Paul and that he made the lies. What can your sola scriptura do now?

What can your unwritten tradition of "Sola Ecclesia" do?

Now you are answering by guessing off the top of your head. Nero's reign was 37ad-68ad. There was no NT present yet. The only thing we had were Paul's epistles and yet not every christian church could logically have that.

Yes we had Paul's epistles and once again, the actual Apostles planting churches and teaching directly. They were living breathing "New Testaments."

You are actually insulting Christianity to be that feeble minded that it's believers required a book to learn their beliefs and that it wasn't first hand or personally taught to them.

I didn't say they needed a book. They needed a preacher who was grounded in Truth.

Good job unintentionally knowing that you've validated the logical fallacies that Atheists use against christianity. I know it wasn't intentional, but this time think of your answers carefully and not spam reply.

I did no such thing. Establishing an infallible source from silence is a logical fallacy.

So you are just ignoring the other things Irenaeus said, and just want to stretch out his point to fit your failed argument?

I pointed out what Irenaeus said in context. I asked you if you would like to expand on his definition of what he considered 'apostolic tradition' other than what I quoted. There's no stretch here. This is how it went down. You provided a snippet from AH 1.10. 2 and did not provide the context of AH 1.10.1. I provided the context and now you are in a position to show me (or not it's up to you) what other traditions Irenaeus deemed 'apostolic.'

You were given more references for Irenaeus' messages about how the Church has to teach the scriptures as well as being hypothetical by asking what if the scriptures didn't exist?

Yes the church raises up teachers, pastors etc. as each of us has a different gift from the Holy Spirit. I did not claim the Church does not teach. My claim has been the only infallible standard to test what others are teaching are the Holy Scriptures.

Yes, just like now the early christians rely on two rules of faith the NT and the church. The christians who date during the 2nd century (as to what your link shows) had both, the Christians of the early to mid 1st century did not have an actual NT yet.

Again, what comes from God and is Inspired by Him is the infallible standard for testing truth claims. The Church upholds this truth. There are no two methods but one where one informs, reproves, corrects, exhorts and the other upholds.

Writing a creed or rule of faith with these God ordained truths is not creating a second method. It's confirmation of the truth.

Maybe John the Baptist and Jesus wrote something, and they just believed it, right? Or no. Did John the Baptist and Jesus teach through oral tradition only?

You missed the point. People accepted the message of the Baptist and Jesus Christ without the approval of the then sitting magisterium. Meaning no one had to 'vouch' for them and their teachings because the were of God. Same goes with the works of the Apostles.

And here we go again with you not doing your part in reading arguments being given to you. In that same writings that you fail to press on (because it ruins your argument). If you read in AH 3.2.2,
he refers to and unbroken chain of Bishops going back to the apostles to verify it was the correct interpretation. Even in AH 3.21.4 he says that the Holy Spirit is present in the church to guide it to the correct interpretation. Irenaeus even explains his belief that there was a living oral tradition with in the Church which attests to the true apostolic interpretation of Scripture.

These are all necessary characteristics and functions of a church to include synods and councils. Yet does not replace the only God ordained and inspired infallible authority which are Holy Scriptures.

I'm not arguing against ecclesiology. I'm arguing it does not come to be equal to nor trump the actual revelation of God.

Does it matter when they were written in the context of this argument? The fact is, they were not written during the time Luke was making his gospel. He did not use scripture to verify it. The apostles and the people who knew Jesus told him verbally.

Yet, once again many still lived and the eyewitnesses and the apostles themselves are the testimony of the NT. This actually lends support to my point.

Yes, Luke and the NT writers did use recognized Holy Scriptures (Luke 24:44-50) to prove truth claims.

 

[Hillsage]

Call it what you may, but the fact remains, I have yet to see any Fundamental/Evangelical poster show through historic writings, where any Early Church Fathers taught the modern day teaching and belief of being "born again", that being, all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as one's "personal Lord and Savior" by faith alone.

True, but you have heard the 'testimony' of a sold out Catholic (ME ) testifying that none of the church rituals worked either. But consistent with your OP, where in the bible is the position of 'pope' mentioned. Is there any record of Peter claiming such a designation? Yes, the 'claimed' roots of Roman Catholicism go back to Peter. My claimed roots, since leaving the Church of ROME, go back to Christ of Jerusalem. My point being, who cares if 'the written born-again doctrine' came with a 'centuries later' understanding/declaration? You will most certainly defend 'the pope' with no such term being found in church history until....when? I don't even know, nor do I care. Not meaning to sound 'disrespectful', but hopefully bringing a better and more inclusive 'perspective'.

"The unity of the SPIRIT" according to Eph 4:3 is not based upon the bondage of doctrinal or denominational conformity. IT is based upon our mutual co-participation with 'the right Spirit'.

IOW church UNITY is not meant to be a doctrinal conformity, as much as it is a celebrating of individual diversity. I as a hand, need to celebrate you, as a foot....or vice versa. Your 'part' of the mind of Christ is different than my 'part'. Scripture says; "WE have the mind of Christ". "WE" is a collective noun representative of the 'whole, "many membered body of Christ" which 'WE' who are born again are all in, whether we have correct 'indoctrination' or not IMO. I confidently believe that "WE" does not mean 'Thou (sg.) has' or 'I (sg.) have' the whole mind of Christ'. I worship no denomination of men, I do worship the God of all Christian denominations.

I fellowship with 'tongue talking' Catholics in my city of 28,000. Is their charismatic experience, your experience? If not, are they still 'brethren' of yours, because of 'their experience' which you do not have, or because of your common church affiliation? As I said earlier, I was born and raised in 'your denomination', but I was never a 'brethren of Christ' in those years. I am now a Charismatic, just like 'the church' of Corinth was. And it was 'that church' that the "WE" promise was made. ?????Hmmmm.

He (St.John Chrysostom) also said:

Does this sound like being justified by faith alone to you? Or is it your belief what he says here is wrong?
Have a Blessed Day

No it does not sound like 'justification by faith alone'. That revelation of that 'truth' came 500 years ago. But it does sounds like the 'understanding' of a church which was still pounding out their 'indoctrination' at that point in time. The trinity wasn't even decided upon, by the church, when St John Chrysostom spoke your 'quoted' statement. But you do believe in it right? I know you do.

As an X Roman Catholic I too used to beat the 'We were first' drum as proof we were best or most right. But I do not drive a FORD....do you? If you answer YES then you take a little wind out of the sail for me, but hopefully you still catch 'the Spirit' of where I'm coming from and 'blowing to'.

 

[FireDragon76]

You mean by a "private, esoteric spiritual experience" hearing the simple gospel message of forgiveness by faith in the Lord Jesus who was crucified for our sins and rose again, and becoming manifestly born again by believing it at that hour (presuming God's drawing and convicting), and confessing that in baptism? Versus being regenerated by baptism even without personal repentant faith? Or needing weeks of formal catachesis before conversion?

Describe the contrasts.

But we do believe that babies that are candidates for baptism are capable of personal faith. Just because it is not an intellectually mature faith does not negate that.

Jesus took children into his arms, blessed them, and told us that the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Surely then, children are capable of being disciples. That is why the pastor or another elder in our church gathers up children to preach to them a sermon, because they are indeed disciples, and the Word has made it so.

Our religious denomination (the ELCA) cannot extend the right hand of fellowship to Christians that deny that baptism is a sacrament that has a divine promise under the sign of water. It is a deal-breaker for us, because we believe this is essential to the catholic faith handed to us from the apostles.

 

[redleghunter]

Yup, not reading carefully again. How does this, as well as the verses you put some how dispute this fact.
It's ironic seeing that your doctrines where all produced after the 1600's -each of them being a reformed doctrine of whatever protestant denomination -yet here you are pointing fingers at the RC and EO for "later developments in doctrines".

Your doctrine from whatever denomination you are from was born after the 1600's, all the traditions you criticized as later installments are almost shared with all the older denominations including the first protestants. So what i am saying in my quote is that you have very little credibility in telling any of us about later doctrinal installments since again your was made after 1600's (probably even later depending on what denomination you are). Yet this is your reply, and you don't see how far off it is?

Actually the most ancient of approaches to test truth claims is against the words of God and what He has written and communicated. There is only one infallible wholly inspired such standard and those are the Holy Scriptures.

The Word of the Lord
Thus Saith the Lord
The Word of God
It is Written
Jesus Said

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Cis.jd said: ↑ I have mentioned it many times. The canon. Do you see any where in the bible that mentions the names of what books are canon?

As your premise is wrong, so also is your conclusion. You seem to presume that unless a required belief (the Trinity, etc.)m is formally, explicitly taught in Scripture the it does not teach it, and therefore sola scriptura (SS) is wrong and Catholic tradition is needed.

However this is a strawman of SS, in which sufficiency is not even restricted to what Scripture formally provides, such as an actual gospel message of required beliefs, but also includes what is materially provides for/sanctions, from reason to writing to teachers. Thus the classic SS document the Westminster Confession (not that it presumes infallibility, and i must concur with all it says), states that necessary Truths are either "expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture:" To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things). Yet ".we acknowledge...that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” Chapter I

And Scripture clearly attests to the fact that common souls discerned both men and writings of God as being so, before there even was a church which presumed her presumed infallibility was essential to discover what Scripture consisted of, for an authoritative body of Scripture was manifestly established by the time of Christ.

And as said, writing was God's means of long-term reliable preservation of His word, and as is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. </p>

Therefore, the establishment of the 66 book Prot. canon is entirely Scriptural, that of books being added which sat in the "seat" of wholly inspired writings, like as the recognition of certain man having certain authority, such as those who sat and would sit in the seat of Moses, (Dt. 17:8-23; Mt. 23:2) and even future justices of SCOTUS today, even if they were not named in Scripture (yet note that even Biblical authority did not/ does not necessarily require or infer infallibility).

The word "Holy Trinity" is also not there,

The word "Bible" is not in the Bible (unless "books" passes for it), nor theological terms such as "soteriology," but consistent with has been said, such need not be, as formulating theological descriptions are Biblical, if Scriptural. (Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9) However, requiring as a doctrine that one use such a precise term as Trinity is not the same thing as require one believe the doctrine is describes. and I've referenced how the first christians during Nero believed this even with out the Bible. These were all teachings that were taught by the apostles taught And as asked you more than once before in response to the polemic behind this statement,

"And so Catholic popes and prelates speak as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public express revelation thereby, as men such as the apostles could? If not, what is the basis for assurance of the veracity of your church in declaring such?"

Your doctrine from whatever denomination you are from was born after the 1600's

Which is no more necessarily true of RLH than it was for me the last time you tried it, and repeating it will not make it so! Rather, I can show that your doctrine that I contend against is from your "denomination" (regardless if you do not like the term as descriptive of your church), and is not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, and only what it manifestly believed it what I can contend for.

The one in bold is of importance. I've asked before, if you believe that the last written revelation of God ceased from the last Apostle (who we believe is John - Revelations) therefore no new books can be added or removed. The NT is 27 only.

Some RCs actually debate if ?Trent actually closed the canon.

Now the reason why those cultists are mentioned is because they were former protestants who had the same form of reasoning and arguments you are giving now. Look at what happens when the Church isn't there and they all go by this same Sola Scriptura reasoning you are giving - you end up with men like Felix Manalo and Joseph Smith.

WRONG here. To the contrary, such cults actually operate according to the RC model for assurance of Truth, in which the leadership presumes a level of ensure veracity and fidelity in doctrine "above that which is written" (1Co. 4:6) men possess. And also, as with Catholicism, present another source of inspired Divine revelation besides Scripture.

If you actually read the link that I gave about him, he was a former protestant. He moved from various denominations, and from reading the Bible he believed that every denomination (including yours) wasn't following what Scripture truly said.. so he makes a religion in where Jesus is no longer God and he has all these verses for it. Him and his followers all think he was a prophet from God sent to correct what the Catholic church lied about.

Meaning after rejecting Colorumism, Methodist, Presbyterian, Alliance of Christian Missionaries and lastly the Seventh-Day Adventist cult of Ellen White, whose leadership he even fought, this begins a another church after the model of Rome. Indeed such a Joe Smith type pseudoprophet fits the Catholic charge of being a little pope," whose church hails him as "the last messenger of God."

Iin contrast to those who whose claim to veracity must rest upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Which is how the NT church began.

One of the arguments Felix Manalo guy is that neither Jesus or his apostles taught about him being God, those where just verses put in by the catholic church? So how do you prove that wrong? You can't use the scriptures for his divinity anymore, because they all believe they are all lies from Catholics.

That he will not heed scriptures that refute him but uses Scripture to support his elitism also makes him more like a RC, who tend to forget that just because the devil abused Scripture then it does not mean that Truth-loving Berean-type souls are wrong for subjecting the veracity of what they hear to the test of Scripture.

Which is contrary to thinking of men above that which is written, with required cultic implicit assent which is classic Catholicism*. And and that you would use such a elitist rebels as Manalo and his cult in combating Acts 17:11 souls, and in defending the Rome and its demands, actually makes you an enemy of Berean-type souls. Who would reject he likes of Manalo as well as your elitist church.

*'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources Cardinal Burke: Here’s What the Formal Correction of Pope Francis Will Look Like)

The way they can be refuted is through my arguments about how the 1st christians during the time of Nero were documented to be worshiping Jesus in their prison cells. They did not have the NT back then, so it shows these were not Catholic interpolations. You see the importance of apostolic tradition?

WRONG again. Again, these ECFs are not infallible, wholly inspired writers, and it is the latter which define what the NT church believed.

Your beliefs of the canon being a closed canon is all taught from the Catholic church,

Well then, answer the questions asked you, for your argument seems to be that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such (via its magisterium) are the sure authorities on what they are and mean? And that such are essential to know what is of God?

If not, of what polemical import is the argument "we gave you the Bible?" Until your establish the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults) then all your insistence on believing in Catholic tradition is without warrant, and leaves you with another elitist church presuming to think of men "above that which is written" belongs to men, regardless if you imagine Manalo is what SS leads to.

Which doctrine, BTW, is not to be understood in isolation from the principals referred to by RLH in redleghunter said: ↑ Which we can count on being ignored by RCs who are compelled to defend their church.

 

[Cis.jd]

Again, was the canon a declaration of authoritative works or were the works declared authoritative by the church?

not "authoritative", it was guided and ruled as the true inspired word of God.

The exact word no. However, the Triune God is evident in Holy Scriptures. I can show you if you want or you can start another thread on 'finding the Trinity in the Bible.' snip

Good job dodging (or just not understanding) the point.

I don't skim but tend to omit ad hominem type comments to not further contention. Or I just missed the quote and accidentally posted under another quote.

There was no ad hominem's so there is really no other logical reason why you've been misrepresenting and even replying with points that are out of context to what is being talked about in the quote blocks (just like the quote above). So it's either you are doing this intentionally because you are angry about being refuted or you are just simply not understanding it right. The quote above about the Trinune and how you've responded to it shows you really don't care about staying in the point of what is being argued to you.

The tradition I uphold is the most ancient. Which is the only infallible standard to test truth claims is the wholly Inspired Word of God.

But you are Sola Scriptura, and from what I am detecting from your replies you sound like a Presbyterian, which is reformed from Calvinism. I bet you, Calvinists will tell you that you don't uphold anything original and that you are not following the scriptures, just the many other protestants that are here.

OT: Direct words of God (thus saith the Lord) through the prophets and the inspired works of the prophets
NT: Direct words of Christ and the Holy Spirit inspired teachings of His Apostles.

Missing the point again. Now how does this tell someone like Felix Manalo that he can trust the actual Bible we have today, he (as well as the Muslims) claim the NT now is corrupted by the Catholic Church - "there are verses that were later added". How does this tell him he is wrong and that he can't make a New New Testament?

Actually, you may have missed it, these cultists demand obedience to their one leader/council or form of magisterium. They prop themselves up as the only purveyors of truth and placing upon the neck a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.

But they all have claimed that they are following the true message of the Scriptures. What you believe their motives are is meaningless. And once again you simply stray away from the point.
You fail to admit that these men are simply going against the long tradition and long ruling of the Church that only Matt-Rev is the only canon -nothing more an nothing less. They are not going against scripture on this specific case because there is nothing in scripture that states what the canon is. Up to now you have been throwing smokescreens to stay away from this point and you are actually showing yourself to be immature because of how your attitude gets when you can't find an actual reply to the context.

Again, we agree the NT canon is closed because Jesus Christ's Apostles who He directly taught are absent from the body and present with the Lord. When the Apostles taught they spoke with authority proving their truth claims with Inspired Holy Scriptures and clothed with the Power of God (miracles included too).

Yes we agree, but you are being questioned as to why you believe this when there isn't any scriptural statement as to what the canon is. You are actually rambling in circles on this argument that you can't even make a clear case as to where your arguments stand.
You as well can't get the fact that this NT canon was not around during the time of Nero and just spammed random and academically fallacious statements that you just guessed off the top of your head.

Matthew to Revelation is Holy Spirit revealed inspired Scriptures. For the very reasons I quoted above reference the apostles and also because we find fulfillment of the OT Scriptures in the NT aka the writings of the apostles.

So are you admitting that there is no actual scriptural statement as to what the canon is, and the reason why they were canonized is because the Church ruled them because of it being passed from the apostles. Thanks for clarifying on Apostolic tradition. As to what Irenaeus said in his writings, "what if the apostles did not leave us with the scriptures" which also tells you how the Church is supposed to guide the faith and teaching the interpretation of scripture.

Churches do establish traditions but they must be tested against the only infallible wholly inspired revelation to mankind...The Holy Scriptures.

Yes, they should be but the Church is in charge of interpreting the scriptures. Faith can't be by scripture alone because it will result to cultists like the men i've referenced here.

Here's where we disagree. The only infallible standard to test truth claims is Holy Scriptures. The church being the Body of Christ upholds the Truth (does not create her own, add or subtract). The church is tasked (see Acts 15) to resolve disputes involving faith matters but such must be tested against the Word of God as revealed through God, His prophets, the Divine Logos and His Apostles. In fact what I just wrote was the standard the early church used.

Nope, the Holy Scriptures is not the only one infallible, the Church is as well. Irenaeus has said it in the quotes you gave. You have shown that you can't even understand what I am talking about when referencing muslims, Nero-era Christians, and even the verses that you are just pasting over here, yet you still think you understand what Irenaeus said?

What can your unwritten tradition of "Sola Ecclesia" do?

Well what it can do is that it can show history. So when a Muslim makes the argument about how Christians did not originally believe Jesus to be God so we show them the Church of the time of Nero. There was no NT present during that time and those christians died for their faith despite it not being born from reading. So the proof is in the church - the church has taught and kept the divinity of Christ way before Rome adopted Christianity, so any attacks a Muslim makes that the Bible is corrupted by us Catholics is easily refuted by the existence of the Church during 1CE.

Yes we had Paul's epistles and once again, the actual Apostles planting churches and teaching directly. They were living breathing "New Testaments."

I didn't say they needed a book. They needed a preacher who was grounded in Truth.

Yes, they needed something passed down. Hasn't it not occurred to you that the people that managed to give them the info about Jesus' life were also part of the early church? So in short, all this was given to them by the church itself. Good job with this, you are slowly validating my arguments. I know that you will argue back that you are not but if you do read this discussion we are having carefully, you will see how you are contradicting your initial case.

I did no such thing. Establishing an infallible source from silence is a logical fallacy.

But the source still says there are things not written.. you are just using your own accusations of it being of silence against it.

I pointed out what Irenaeus said in context. I asked you if you would like to expand on his definition of what he considered 'apostolic tradition' other than what I quoted. There's no stretch here. This is how it went down. You provided a snippet from AH 1.10. 2 and did not provide the context of AH 1.10.1. I provided the context and now you are in a position to show me (or not it's up to you) what other traditions Irenaeus deemed 'apostolic

No you were out of context, I did not snip things to block any points, i'm doing it to make sure my post isn't lengthy. All the references, including yours describes the high importance of the church and how it is supposed to guide and interpret scripture. Go and quote every single sentence and paragraph in where he speaks of the church, do it.

My claim has been the only infallible standard to test what others are teaching are the Holy Scriptures.

But that whole quote from Irenaeus is telling you it's not. He even says that with a theoratical question "what if the Apostles didn't leave us with the scripture" that alone sums up everything about it. You have done nothing but dodged this and applied various creative writings to your responses.

You missed the point. People accepted the message of the Baptist and Jesus Christ without the approval of the then sitting magisterium. Meaning no one had to 'vouch' for them and their teachings because the were of God. Same goes with the works of the Apostles.

This is a really bizarre analogy you are using in this argument. Both men were "believed" by those people to be prophets. Prophets are viewed to be of a higher caliber than random church fathers.You don't see how this segment of yours draws is a silly point?

I'm not arguing against ecclesiology. I'm arguing it does not come to be equal to nor trump the actual revelation of God.

this goes back to the question of why do you believe in the canon. Why do you believe that Matt-Rev is the only revelation of God (in terms of the NT)? There is no actual scriptural proof for it other than random statements from church fathers. How do you know they are at error with some books? You don't realize that you are following the ruling of the Church itself. It is the Catholic church that ruled it to be only 27. Not 28 and not 29. It's 27 period, yet you agree with this and at the same time argue about their authority in guiding the faith?

 

[redleghunter]

Call it what you may, but the fact remains, I have yet to see any Fundamental/Evangelical poster show through historic writings, where any Early Church Fathers taught the modern day teaching and belief of being "born again", that being, all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as one's "personal Lord and Savior" by faith alone.

Maybe it's because some of us have been dealing the really, really early church the one in the New Testament?

Already shown you and many others the New Birth, born again from above is an act of God and not deemed by man via a date time group but His will:

John 3: NASB
7“Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8“The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

That we are dead in our trespasses and sins, yet by God's Grace He makes us alive (no mention of baptism):

Ephesians 2: NASB
1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Which makes us partakers of the divine nature:

2 Corinthians 5: NASB
16Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

And Born Again through the living and enduring word of God.

1 Peter 1: NASB
22Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, 23for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

The Apostle Peter once again confirming our regeneration, born again is an act of God:

1 Peter 1: NASB
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

And the Evangelist says thus:

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (1 John 5:1)

And verse 4:

For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. (1 John 5:4)


Thus being God's will:

John 1: NASB
9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[redleghunter]

not "authoritative", it was guided and ruled as the true inspired word of God.

On what basis?

 

[Cis.jd]

On what basis?

Well if you doubt it, then you are now forced to have skepticism on the NT canon.

 

[Cis.jd]

As your premise is wrong, so also is your conclusion. You seem to presume that unless a required belief (the Trinity, etc.)m is formally, explicitly taught in Scripture the it does not teach it, and therefore sola scriptura (SS) is wrong and Catholic tradition is needed.

However is a strawman of SS, in which sufficiency is not even restricted to what Scripture formally provides, such as an actual gospel message of required beliefs, but also includes what is materially provides for/sanctions, from reason to writing to teachers. Thus the classic SS document the Westminster Confession (not that it presumes infallibility, and i must concur with all it says), states that necessary Truths are either "expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture:" To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things). Yet ".we acknowledge...that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” Chapter I
snip

Why is it that one protestant uses the Westminster Confession and then another protestant (Baptist for ex) dismisses it and claim that the Baptist Confession of Faith is correct?

Here is one against it, by Calvanist. Are There Doctrinal Errors in the Westminster Confession?, Calvinism, William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Christian Classics books at BibleStudyTools.com

Another protestant site: Problems with the Westminster Confession of Faith - Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums

Look at the other protestant denominations arguing scripture against it's interpretation of scripture and practically all of it's contents and arguments. I'm confused. Who is right and who is wrong here first so I can take this part of your argument of any merit. Why are you giving me something that is also rejected by other Protestants?

 

[redleghunter]

Well if you doubt it, then you are now forced to have skepticism on the NT canon.

No I don’t doubt at all. I can hear the voice of the Good Shepherd clearly in the Gospel of John but very little in the alleged gospel of Thomas.

The apostles confirmed their preaching and doctrine with Holy Scriptures Jesus opened their minds to as well as being clothed in the Power of God. This is the witness of the Church.