Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas? (2)

[fhansen]

Of course. And of course I could be wrong too. But not the men in your assembly, they can't be wrong according to you.

So, knowing you can be wrong, why are you so adamant about what you claim to believe? Why so opposed to certain Catholic dogma-or the reasonable teaching that God may've established a church with the guarantee that it would hold and carry the truth intact throughout the ages?

Well, by all means then please tell us your interpretation of the sower and his seed.

The word is planted, the gospel is spread-and some receive it and it grows within producing much fruit for the kingdom, others receive it and later reject it, while others reject it from the get-go.

 

[fhansen]

There is no such thing as Apostolic Succession.

Yes, and as is often the case with those who hold strictly to scripture, you're in disagreement here with others who hold strictly to scripture.

 

[Albion]

Age, in itself, means nothing-or else we should all be Hindu or something I suppose. But, OTOH, there's a mistake we make-young people especially-when we dismiss age out of hand. "Apostolic succession", for example, places a value on age- on a continuous legacy into the past, to the beginnings of Christianity.

In the case of Apostolic Succession, that often owes to misunderstanding the meaning of the term, not to something more profound.

 

[fhansen]

In the case of Apostolic Succession, that often owes to misunderstanding the meaning of the term, not to something more profound.

Oh, OK. So the difference between your own beliefs on it, and say, those who reject it altogether, is also simply a matter of profundity?

 

[Albion]

Oh, OK. So the difference between your own beliefs on it, and say, those who reject it altogether, is also simply a matter of profundity?

My point was that many who are not members of churches that have Apostolic Succession seem to think that today's bishops are believed by us to be latter-day Apostles, just like The Twelve, rather than successors of the Apostles and in certain respects only.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And why is that? Why are the men in your assembly above error with regard to faith and morals where everyone else can be wrong?

Because God gave them that gift. The Holy Spirit, in particular, rains down gifts on all God's children. The bishops, in communion with the Pope, have the gift of infallibility. In narrow circumstances.

Yes, the word of God is that good incorruptible seed which is sown and which produces an increase.. it's not what the men in your assembly say but rather what God has said in His word.

Which proceeded from the pens of the men in our Assembly, inspired by the Holy Spirit. You're welcome!

 

[ThatTrueLight]

So, knowing you can be wrong, why are you so adamant about what you claim to believe? Why so opposed to certain Catholic dogma-or the reasonable teaching that God may've established a church with the guarantee that it would hold and carry the truth intact throughout the ages?

Because I understand what the church actually is.. and no, it isn't your assembly, that's plain ridiculous.

The word is planted, the gospel is spread-and some receive it and it grows within producing much fruit for the kingdom, others receive it and later reject it, while others reject it from the get-go.

Well look at that.. just what it says.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Yes, and as is often the case with those who hold strictly to scripture, you're in disagreement here with others who hold strictly to scripture.

Then you'll find out in the end that there have always been TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb and that they shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Now if the church of God in Rome would have taken heed to the warning in Romans 11 then they would know that Israel is blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in..

So what good are the men in your assembly who can't be wrong when they can't even acknowledge the simple truth to begin with?

 

[fhansen]

My point was that many who are not members of churches that have Apostolic Succession seem to think that today's bishops are believed by us to be latter-day Apostles, just like The Twelve, rather than successors of the Apostles and in certain respects only.

And yet, either way, those churches that hold to AS do so for reasons/beleifs that would still be objectionable by most churches that don't.

 

[Albion]

And yet, either way, those churches that hold to AS do so for reasons/beleifs that would still be objectionable by most churches that don't.

No doubt, but at least there could be a discussion under those circumstances. It's impossible if one party has his own theory on what the term means and isn't taking account of the explanations that have been given repeatedly.

 

[fhansen]

Because I understand what the church actually is.. and no, it isn't your assembly, that's plain ridiculous.

You're right-it's bigger than my "assembly".

Well look at that.. just what it says.

Yes, there are many like that- and others that aren't like that. Very few would disagree on my understanding of that passage-although it wouldn't surprise me a bit if someone out there objected. OTOH, many can't agree, based on scripture, about baptismal regeneration-the need for water baptism for salvation. If you believed that baptism was necessary for salvation, would that cause any concerns for you about those assemblys that teach otherwise?

 

[fhansen]

No doubt, but at least there could be a discussion under those circumstances. It's impossible if one party has his own theory on what the term means and isn't taking account of the explanations that have been given repeatedly.

I'll translate: you don't like it when someone disagrees with you.

 

[fhansen]

Then you'll find out in the end that there have always been TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb and that they shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

OK, pope TTL. It amazes me how people can object to others doing the very thing they do.

 

[Albion]

I'll translate: you don't like it when someone disagrees with you.

I hope that's supposed to be a joke.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

You're right-it's bigger than my "assembly".

And has absolutely nothing to do with your assembly. The church of God consists of men, women, and children who have placed their faith and trust in the precious shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. It has zero to do with men thinking that they're the one true church, it simply shows that they have no idea what the church is, regardless of their ridiculous claim that it can't be wrong about faith and moral issues.

IOW it simply shows how ridiculous the claim itself is when they don't even understand what the church of God is.

Yes, there are many like that- and others that aren't like that. Very few would disagree on my understanding of that passage-although it wouldn't surprise me a bit if someone out there objected. OTOH, many can't agree, based on scripture, about baptismal regeneration-the need for water baptism for salvation. If you believed that baptism was necessary for salvation, would that cause any concerns for you about those assemblys that teach otherwise?

The answer is always in the scriptures and it's clear that baptism is for believers.. and if you're a believer, then the LORD knows that and HE ALONE baptizes a person into HIS BODY by that same SPIRIT.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

OK, pope TTL. It amazes me how people can object to others doing the very thing they do.

Just what the bible says in crystal clear language. Now if you'd like to tell us that it doesn't say this, and says something completely different, then why don't you?

Why do you just run away when there's a simple question that exposes how ridiculous your claims actually are?

 

[fhansen]

And has absolutely nothing to do with your assembly. The church of God consists of men, women, and children who have placed their faith and trust in the precious shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. It has zero to do with men thinking that they're the one true church, it simply shows that they have no idea what the church is, regardless of their ridiculous claim that it can't be wrong about faith and moral issues.

IOW it simply shows how ridiculous the claim itself is when they don't even understand what the church of God is.

OK, so are you right or wrong on your own position regarding the faith, since you seem to be very certain about my assembly's position being wrong in one way or another? You're certainly wrong about there being no need for a visible church having authority-and have in fact demonstrated the need for that very authority over and over again with your errors. Those who hold firmly to SS just refuse to admit the emperor has no clothes. You've been supported by many other Sola Scripturalists on this very thread with whom you already disagree significantly.

The answer is always in the scriptures and it's clear that baptism is for believers.. and if you're a believer, then the LORD knows that and HE ALONE baptizes a person into HIS BODY by that same SPIRIT.

Great we agree on that. Water baptism is necessary for salvation. Good!

 

[Root of Jesse]

And has absolutely nothing to do with your assembly. The church of God consists of men, women, and children who have placed their faith and trust in the precious shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. It has zero to do with men thinking that they're the one true church, it simply shows that they have no idea what the church is, regardless of their ridiculous claim that it can't be wrong about faith and moral issues.

ABSOLUTELY nothing??? Really? So you believe that Catholics are not "men, women, and children who have placed their faith and trust in the precious shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins"? Now who's making ridiculous claims and judging people's hearts?
Secondly, it's not "men thinking they're one true church", etc. If it was, you might be right. But it's not. It's the Holy Spirit SHOWING those men that Christ instituted one Church, and that they are successors of those he taught. FWIW, none of us here believes that you aren't a part of that one True Church.

IOW it simply shows how ridiculous the claim itself is when they don't even understand what the church of God is.

How do you know that this blanket statement about all the men who have been servants of the servants of God "don't even understand what the church of God is" is true?

The answer is always in the scriptures and it's clear that baptism is for believers.. and if you're a believer, then the LORD knows that and HE ALONE baptizes a person into HIS BODY by that same SPIRIT.

Which is true of Catholic baptism. The Holy Spirit is involved in ALL our sacraments, all 7 that Christ instituted. It's not clear that only adults should be baptized, especially if you understand that the Sacrament of Baptism removes the stain of Original Sin. If you understood that, you'd understand what babies are baptized-it's because parents always have authority to determine what their children are going to be brought up believing. Parents always make decisions for their children-vaccinations, what they will eat, what school they will go to if any, etc. But baptism isn't the end, there's instruction in church teaching, which should extend through the teen years, with graduation steps at First Communion and Confirmation.

 

[fhansen]

Just what the bible says in crystal clear language. Now if you'd like to tell us that it doesn't say this, and says something completely different, then why don't you?

Why do you just run away when there's a simple question that exposes how ridiculous your claims actually are?

None of have been running away here. You have been over and over again when your errors are exposed.