Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Non-Catholic Religions
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #211  
Old Jun 12, '12, 10:01 am
rfournier103's Avatar
rfournier103 rfournier103 is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: March 29, 2012
Posts: 1,679
Religion: Latin Catholic of the Roman Rite
Default Re: A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

[quote=mackbrislawn;9399189]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwmnstar View Post
1)
Good for the Church of Christ for returning to this biblical truth, that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, and not just a symbol like many Baptists and JW's and such would have it.
Of course other churches have elders too. But I feel that the earliest non-canonical sources do indicate a bishop and prebytery.
Many groups have what I call a "gimmick." For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses' gimmick is to make a big deal about using "Jehovah" and since they do, it makes them the true religion. The Seventh Day Adventists worship on Saturday and since they do it, that makes them the true religion. A gimmick of the CofC is singing a capella so that is a sign they are the true church.

I guess the Catholic and Orthodox churches have a gimmick too. Their gimmick is that they have been in continuous existence stemming from the apostles, with bishops officially sanctioned by the Holy Spirit.

A sign for me of the true church is one that is like Yahweh, I AM. The Catholic and Orthodox churches haven't been artificially formed by men, they simply ARE.

I totally agree. I have a very hard time understanding why more people don't see historical fact. The succession isn't made up. I can't think of any credible schollar who, after looking at the evidence, would deny this.

I've seen many here on this site debate what Jesus meant about The Rock, The Church, etc... But I've never seen anyone flat-out say that Apostolic Succession is baloney. Even die-hard Protestants I know personally skirt around that with things like; "this isn't what Jesus wanted his Church to be like;" but never anything close to denying successon.

The Catholic Church is 2000 years old, and traces it's origins all the way back to Jesus Christ.

That's quite a gimmick, indeed.
  #212  
Old Jun 12, '12, 10:38 am
Nicea325 Nicea325 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Posts: 6,847
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

Quote:
You quoted me as saying: "The earliest non canonical writings suggest that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, administered primarily by immersion to believing and consenting individuals. The Church of Christ is in harmony."
Really? It is in harmony? Tell me how one living in the middle of the blazing hot desert or ice cold waters is to be fully immersed? Evidently your church is exclusive as to who can and cannot meet the requirements?


Quote:
Quote:Nicea
This is a merely a half-truth statement. I already mentioned to you that the first converts were consenting and believing adults because there wasn't any cradle Christians. Second, please show me in the NT where it explicitly states the only acceptable method of baptism is immersion and all others are unacceptable? Third, please show me in the NT where the only norm or standard to baptize is based on "believing" and consenting people?

Quote:
The meaning of the word baptism is to immerse, to plunge or dip. Pouring and sprinkling are distinct from baptism in the Greek (chio and rantizo I believe). I’m arguing that the primary mode of the rite was by immersion, and was simply stating that the Churches of Christ have retained the normal method of administering the sacrament. Where in the New Testament does the word imply that individuals were sprinkled or poured on when they were baptized?
If you are suggesting the NT is silent on pouring and sprinkling,then it is clear you are stating full immersion is the ONLY acceptable method? Again...where does the NT clearly declare it as the ONLY valid method? BTW: The Didache says otherwise.


Quote:
Quote:Nicea325
Can you present a case of any "believing" and "consenting" 13-21 year old is baptized?
Quote:
I’m not sure what you mean by this statement.
Yes. You stated one must be a "believing" person in order to be baptized-right? Do you have a case in the NT apart from believing adults where a young child or young adult is ONLY baptized after he believes?

Quote:
"The earliest non-canonical sources indicate a plurality of elders in each church and not a bishop presiding over the rest of the presbytery. The church of Christ still maintains this type of church polity."
Yes...even the Diocese I work has a pluarity of elders (bishops),but only ONE is the head over the entire region. The NT mentions bishops (1 Tim 3:1-7) and even my NKJV Study Bible reads: This Greek word refers to a person (singular) who oversees a congregation. The word bishop and elder are interchangable for the same office. No reference to church government being operated under the only acceptale method of pluarity of elders.

Quote:
Quote:Nicea325:
Not entirely true. Again,show me were the NT forbids a single bishop presiding over a community? How about any ECF claiming the only method of governing is through a pluarity of elders?

Quote:
The earliest non-canonical sources do indicate a plurality of elders in each church and not a bishop presiding over the rest of the presbytery. What part of this statement is not entirely true? The earliest documents that reference church polity are the Didache and 1 Clement. They harmonize with the NT teaching that a plurality of elders governs the church. Where does the NT teach that a bishop is different than an elder, or for that matter, that a bishop presides over the presbytery? And remember, “Those closest in time were in a better position to testify to apostolic examples than later witnesses. That should be obvious, even if this consideration is often ignored” (Everett Ferguson).
This has been answered before in the past long before your church existed.


Quote:
Didache-

“Elect therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, men who are meek, not lovers of money, true, and tested. For they minister to you the service of the prophets and teachers. Do not look down on them, for they are your honored men along with the prophets and teachers.” (15)
More proof-texting or quote mining and taken out-of-context.Bad...bad interpretation on your part. No where does the above make reference to church structure or how it is to be operated.

Quote:
Clement of Rome:

“They preached [the apostles] district by district and city by city and appointed their first converts, after testing them by the Spirit, as bishops and deacons of those who were going to believe….For thus the Scripture says somewhere, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith”

Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife concerning the episcopate. For this cause and having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those we mentioned above and afterward gave the rule that if they died other tested men should succeed to their ministry. The men therefore who have been appointed by the apostles and afterward by other eminent men with the consent of the whole church and who have ministered umblameably to the flock of Chris humbly, quietly, and unselfishly, men who have been well testified to for many years by all, these men we do not consider it just to expel from their ministry. For it will be no small sin to us if we cast out from the episcopate those who have offered the gifts unblameably and holily. Blessed are those elders who have died previously and and had a fruitful and perfect departure. They have no fear that someone remove them from their established place. For we see that you have removed some who have conducted themselves well from the ministry which has been unblameably honored by them.” (42,44).
Another case of taking the words of ECF out-of-context. Where in the above does Clement state church government is to be run and operated by a pluarity of elders and not one bishop? Where...?


Quote:
Hermas

“The old woman came and asked me if I had already given the book to the elders. I replied that I had not given it. That is all right, she said, for I have words to add. When I have finisehed all the words, they shall be made known by you to all the elect. You shall write therefore two books and you shall send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Clement then shall send it to the cities abroad, for that is his duty. Grapte shall admonish the widows and orphans. But you shall read it for this city with the elders who preside over the church.” (Visions 2.4.2-3).
Again....taken out-of-context. Where is church government structure and function described? Because it mentions elders it proves it? Bad interpretation.


Quote:
You quoted me as saying:

"The ECF's mandate singing with acapella worship. The Churches of Christ sing Acapella style."


Quote:
Quote:Nicea325
Really? Please show this mandate by Ignatius or Ambrose or Jerome?

Quote:
Please show me one early church father that supports instrumental usage in worship.
You are dodging the question posed at you. Please show me these mandates by the ECF stating acapella is the only acceptable method?


Quote:
I referenced the Catholic Encylcopedia, as well as various patristic sources, all of which conclude that the primary method of singing was Acapella for roughly the first thousand years of Christianity
.


Sources pleases....and the entire sources,not just isolated statements.


Quote:
Can you submit evidence of the contrary?
Speaking of irony at its best? And can you submit evidence of your nineteenth century church historically being founded in the first century?


Quote:
Failure of Ambrose, Ignatius, and Jerome to mention singing does not prove or disprove anything. It certaintly isn't proof that they supported instrumental music.
Oh I see! It proves nothing of the sort,but it sure proves your position without any doubt-seriously? No offense,but I have come to the conclusion you are not here to hear others due to your failure to answer everything posed at you. Moreover,you are here to isolate statements from ECF to prove your agenda that the Churches of Christ stem back to the first century. You have a lot to learn about the ECF and historical matters.

Your absolute failure to support your original opening statement speaks volumes!
  #213  
Old Jun 12, '12, 11:06 am
sdegutis sdegutis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2011
Posts: 249
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

bwmnstar,

Since you seem obsessed with the Baptism controversy, take a look at http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html specifically the "Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion" and "Infant Baptism" sections.
__________________
"Totus tuus"
  #214  
Old Jun 12, '12, 11:15 am
Nicea325 Nicea325 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Posts: 6,847
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdegutis View Post
bwmnstar,

Since you seem obsessed with the Baptism controversy, take a look at http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html specifically the "Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion" and "Infant Baptism" sections.
I am waiting...still for bwmnstar to present the historical evidence that the Churches of Christ was founded in the 1st century? As to today...ZILCH! I want to read them because apparently my graduate school never allowed us to examine such sources? I should ask for a refund?
  #215  
Old Jun 12, '12, 11:17 am
sdegutis sdegutis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2011
Posts: 249
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325 View Post
I am waiting...still for bwmnstar to present the historical evidence that the Churches of Christ was founded in the 1st century? As to today...ZILCH! I want to read them because apparently my graduate school never allowed us to examine such sources? I should ask for a refund?
Your graduate school? Are you a priest or bishop or something?
__________________
"Totus tuus"
  #216  
Old Jun 12, '12, 1:18 pm
mackbrislawn mackbrislawn is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Posts: 1,147
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

[quote=rfournier103;9399999]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackbrislawn View Post


I totally agree. I have a very hard time understanding why more people don't see historical fact. The succession isn't made up. I can't think of any credible schollar who, after looking at the evidence, would deny this.

I've seen many here on this site debate what Jesus meant about The Rock, The Church, etc... But I've never seen anyone flat-out say that Apostolic Succession is baloney. Even die-hard Protestants I know personally skirt around that with things like; "this isn't what Jesus wanted his Church to be like;" but never anything close to denying successon.

The Catholic Church is 2000 years old, and traces it's origins all the way back to Jesus Christ.

That's quite a gimmick, indeed.


You know, it's funny. The Jehovah's Witnesses in one of their books deny that Apostolic Succession is a biblical teaching. But, then they turn around and have the exact same thing in their organization! They have a president (pope) with a governing body (cardinals), and overseers and elders (bishops and priests), that have perpetuated themselves since the Watchtower corporation was founded.

In fact, that is how any organization retains its identity from generation to generation. A succession of office holders. The true church will have its succession from the apostles. A man-made church will have succession too, but its succession will start from the man or woman that invented the church.
  #217  
Old Jun 12, '12, 1:38 pm
Patavium's Avatar
Patavium Patavium is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2011
Posts: 1,726
Religion: Catholic - Roman rite
Default Re: A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdegutis View Post
Your graduate school? Are you a priest or bishop or something?
There are Catholics here who have degrees in Theology (Master's, ThD, and others), and also linguistics (studying biblical greek, ecclesiastical latin, and others).
__________________


...And so I take my sister E_7 NOT for any lustful motive, but I do it in singleness of heart. Be kind enough to have pity on her and on me and bring us to old age together.
  #218  
Old Jun 12, '12, 2:32 pm
Nicea325 Nicea325 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Posts: 6,847
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdegutis View Post
Your graduate school? Are you a priest or bishop or something?
Yes...the graduate school I attended in the past.
  #219  
Old Jun 12, '12, 4:18 pm
sdegutis sdegutis is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2011
Posts: 249
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

Wait, which one are you, a priest or a bishop? Or are you an archbishop? Or a cardinal?
__________________
"Totus tuus"
  #220  
Old Jun 12, '12, 6:45 pm
CopticChristian CopticChristian is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: July 26, 2011
Posts: 10,218
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

[quote=rfournier103;9399999]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackbrislawn View Post


I totally agree. I have a very hard time understanding why more people don't see historical fact. The succession isn't made up. I can't think of any credible schollar who, after looking at the evidence, would deny this.

I've seen many here on this site debate what Jesus meant about The Rock, The Church, etc... But I've never seen anyone flat-out say that Apostolic Succession is baloney. Even die-hard Protestants I know personally skirt around that with things like; "this isn't what Jesus wanted his Church to be like;" but never anything close to denying successon.

The Catholic Church is 2000 years old, and traces it's origins all the way back to Jesus Christ.

That's quite a gimmick, indeed.
Rf,

Now if these guys were smart they would start a church where the central focus was bread and wine based on what the OHCAC has done. It seems to hold things together.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Non-Catholic Religions

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8049Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: KayleighPigg
4829CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4295Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: James_OPL
4027OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: fencersmother
3813SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3377Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3184Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: libralion
3150Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
2963For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: 4Jessie
2703Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:41 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2013, Catholic Answers.