Christian Forums

Quote

QuoteThey joined Paul at Corinth and traveled through Cenchrea, Ephesus, Caesarea, went "up" to Jerusalem, and end in Antioch.  That all happened BEFORE Apollos shows up in Ephesus, hundreds of miles away from them.  There is a window of about 2.5 years here during which Apollos could not have been in contact with Paul or any of his cohorts, because they were on a different continent.

Oh, but as it turns out, Apollos was very much in contact with Paul, Paul's third journey took place over the period of many years.  Paul's stay in Ephesus alone, according to the scholarly sources I could find, lasted for over two years, as you point out.  You are arguing that no one, including Paul, could have ever ordained Apollos, who who had gone to Achaia and Corinth, and undoubtedly as an evangelist, elsewhere, during the end of Paul's second journey and during his third, (The end of Acts 18, and Acts 19), when we don't even know where Apollos was for that entire time.  Ah, but this is the problem of the chronology of the Bible and who wrote what.  While Luke wrote Acts 19, and yes, when Paul arrives back at Ephesus, Apollos is in Corinth, but Apollos apparently didn't stay there.  As you put it, "It's a straight shot from Ephesus to Corinth."  Sure enough, and I should have caught it before, that is the exact time that the Biblical experts confirm Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians.

You've repeated what I said...thank you for actually reading the account and tracing out the route.  I do know how much time that takes.  I'm not sure how much this helps your argument, but at least you've admitted that Apollos had already been in Corinth for some time before Paul (and his posse) returned even to Ephesus, where they stayed for an extended time.

QuoteNow the problem for your theory is that Paul writes this,

1 Cor. 16:12  "Now in regard to our brother Apollos, I urged him strongly to go to you with the brothers, but it was not at all his will that he go now. He will go when he has an opportunity."
 
Now, Paul clearly wrote 1 Cor. in Ephesus.  He was there only twice where it would have been.  Every Biblical source I could find says that it was written during the time Luke was recording events of Acts 18, chronologically.  There is no other time he could have, as in Acts 19, he arrives back in Ephesus when Apollos is in Corinth and yet by verse 19:21 Paul is preparing to leave, which he does after the disturbance breaks out by the end of Acts 19.  He clearly didn't write 1 Cor. then.  That leaves very little other possibility.  Every source I could find, says that Apollos was clearly with Paul during this time.  Either the chronology of events in Acts 18 concerning Apollos and Paul simply fails to mention it, or Apollos, evidently spent some time visiting Paul back in Ephesus.  If you can find any other source that says differently, I would like to see it.

Thank you for pointing out that Apollos returned to Ephesus after his time in Corinth.  I had missed that in the chronology.

However, this isn't a problem at all for my argument.  In fact, it could be considered a feature.     It closes the open time frame definitively, instead of leaving it open through the rest of Paul's 3rd journey. 

Remember, its' still BEFORE that happened in 1Cor 1 & 3...before Apollos got back to Ephesus to have a meet and greet with Paul and crew...that he left behind a bunch of converts in Corinth.

QuoteBTW, I found no source, anywhere, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, that ever refers to Apollos as a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon.  If you can find one that does, I would love to see it.  They all simply list him as a an evangelist. 

Ok, no problem.  I think I actually referenced it earlier:

1Cr 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but the ministers (deacons) by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 

QuoteThey, Timothy and Silas, did not accompany Paul on that journey after Ephesus.  Paul sent Timothy back to Greece in Acts 19:22, along with Erastus.

You're confusing Paul's first stop in Ephesus with his second stop.  They went with him the first time (before Apollos arrived).  They did not go with him the 2nd time, which is after the writing of 1 Corinthians.

QuotePaul also sent Timothy to Corinth in 1 Cor. 4:17, when he may very well have met Apollos at that time.  In addition he sent him to Thessalonica in Greece as well.  Timothy and Silas or Erastus may not have even been the only ones in Greece who had the authority to ordain, I am simply pointing out that they could have.

I'm sure by that time he had met Apollos, since they were both in Ephesus prior to the time when 1 Corinthians was written.  But, he was not there when Apollos went to Corinth initially, because he was with Paul, on his way to Jerusalem and then Antioch.

QuoteThe NT contains six letters of Paul's to Timothy.

Just the 2 that bear his name, I thought?  What others are you referring to?

QuoteThose letters comprise many, many, years of time and cover six separate places in Greece that Timothy was conducting his Episcopal mission in.  We don't even know where Silas and Erastus could have been during this entire time.  During that period of many years, Apollos could very well have been ordained by any number of them, or others who we do not know of.  To say he was definitely not ordained, during that period of many years, is nonsensical and without merit.

You don't seem to understand.  I don't have to prove that Apollos was never ever ordained ever.

I only have to demonstrate (or at least show a reasonable probability) that Apollos was already performing functions the RCC reserves to those who are ordained, before he had an opportunity to be ordained.

The window of time to examine starts at Apollos conversion, and ends at the time that Apollos returned to Ephesus and met Paul and company (again, thank you for pointing out that ending limiter).

Quote

QuoteAll of Paul's traveling companions, including Timothy, were with Paul

Not true.  In Acts 18, Paul meets Timothy after Timothy came down from northern Greece.  In Acts 19:22 Timothy and Erastus are sent back to Greece from Ephesus.  We have no idea where Silas was.  Timothy was also sent from Paul back to Corinth, specifically to straighten out problems there as is referenced in 1 Cor.

Well they were during the time I'm talking about.  You're using a different time frame.  They all went with Paul on his trip to Jerusalem (save Priscilla and Aquila) and later returned to Ephesus.  The reason is simple...they were attending the feast at Jerusalem, which was the legal mandate for Jews, as well as the single largest gathering of Jews, and therefore the best evangelistic opportunity to the Jewish people, to be had in the ancient world.

Quote

Quote from: desertknightJust tell me which one become a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, without being ordained by a legitimate person, and you've won!

All these posts later...and you still have never answered that challenge.  There is no proof that Apollos, or anyone else that was a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, was not ordained.

I've answered it over and over, but you keep disputing little points of evidence here and there, so I've been walking you through the historical aspect of Acts, and correlating it to the other epistles Paul wrote.  Thank you for that.  I honestly have to say that the learning I've gained over the course of this argument will help me better understand my Bible.

Quote

QuoteYou mean other than the 2 1/2 year chronology I've presented over and over showing that everybody who could would be qualified to do it was on a different continent?

Everybody?  LoL, Oh gosh, really?  Everybody?  Please.  You have proven nothing of the kind.  Please see above.  Believe me, this caused me an exhaustive and educational search of the events on the Web, and most of the "experts", unlike yourself, know as little of the actual events surrounding Apollos or Priscilla or others mentioned, as I admit to.  It is pure guesswork.  You should shine your deductive reasoning on them...

Perhaps I should.  Do I have permission to quote you if I want to publish?    Don't worry, it won't be a fair representation of the argument at all.

QuoteBTW, Titus, who is indisputably a Bishop, was in Corinth at the time that Apollos was there, (2 Cor. 8:6).

2 Corinthians was written waaaaaaay later.  You're totally out of the time frame we're talking about here.

Quote

QuoteThis is the same strawman you stated at the beginning of this post.

You obviously have no idea what a "strawman" argument is.  Please point out one, single, inaccurate statement I made in this paragraph of mine that you reference here, that constitutes a "strawman" argument.  I have not stated anything concerning your argument that is inaccurate.  I don't do that.

You claimed that the only evidence I brought was an argument from silence.  That's a bad characterization of my argument.  I've brought forth a detailed chronology corresponding the events of Acts 18 & 19 to 1 Corinthians 1 & 3, that now includes cross references to several other chapters.  I've demonstrated that Apollos is referred to as a diakonos in the Bible.

I've also created an alternative explanation of the practice of ordination, centering on the axiom that ORDINATION IS A RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED BY WORKS OF SERVICE.  I've anchored this axiom on the words of Jesus in Matthew 20:25-26.  You still haven't so much as acknowledged this argument, which has nothing to do with Apollos at all.

I've also questioned what is necessary for a proper ordination, questioning whether or not the laying on of hands is necessary for ordination, and whether an appointment by one man is equivalent to an ordination by the presbytery.  What says the RCC?

To boil this all down and say that it is simply an argument based on what-is-not-written is to create a strawman.  Don't do that anymore; it's not an honest argument.

Quote

QuoteThe argument that I keep making, which you keep ignoring, is that ordination doesn't CONFER authority, it RECOGNIZES that authority which is GENERATED BY SERVICE.

Holy Scripture flatly disagrees...

2 Tim 1:6  "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Tit. 1:5  "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you."

1 Tim. 4:14  " Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."

Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you,"

[/quote]
Acts 14:23 & Titus 1:5 don't contradict what I said; they simply show that people were ordained.  I'm not anti-ordination here.  Ordination is a good thing.  I just disagree with you on what ordination does and doesn't do.

ITim 4:14 & 2Tim 1:6 talk about the gift Timothy was given for ministry.  This was probably at the time of ordination based on what we know, but what does it have to do with my argument above?

Finally, Acts 15:24 doesn't include the ordination of any people.  If you read the rest of the chapter, what was "ordained" were the decrees that were sent with the messengers.

QuoteObviously, the Presbyteriate was an appointed and ordained ministry.  Your claim of authority being "generated by service" is flatly unbiblical.  The only thing that Scripture says that "generates" one to be ordained is the calling of the Holy Spirit.

How is it unbiblical when I keep citing verses supporting it?  If you want to make that claim, you need to also address the verses I've cited in support of that position.  Matthew 20:25 is your starting place.  Have at it.

Quote

QuoteOne other thing...I like historical accuracy.  You keep stating that Paul went to Jerusalem to be ordained.  I don't remember this event.  AFAIK Paul was ordained at Antioch.

You're correct.  My bad.  Now if you could only answer...why was Paul required, (Yes, required, unless you think it was done unnecessarily.), to be ordained? Timothy ordained?

Already answered this at the beginning of this post.

QuotePaul is very specific that Timothy's authority comes from the "imposition of my hands."

No...he says that "the gift" came in that manner.  He does not say what the gift is.  Can you establish that the gift was authority?  Paul exhorts him to practice that gift, like he studies, to keep it sharp.  Does that make sense if the gift is authority?  Nooooo....

QuoteThe Presbyters that Timothy ordained were obviously required to be, otherwise, why Paul's instructions to do exactly that?

Again, that's Titus, not Timothy, and I already answered this in this post as well.

I'll have to finish later...I need to eat.

I'm going to end my part in the debate.  I think we have exhausted the topic and I don't think there is any common ground as you believe your reasons why I have it wrong and I believe that you are just ignoring what, to me, is just so blatantly obvious from NT scripture.  I also think we have sidetracked into a discussion of the Diaconate that is fruitless and almost completely unrelated to the interest I had in this thread, or it's topic.  The Church's definition of the Diaconate, although substantially the same for 2,000 years, has changed somewhat and is also slightly different in the East, as opposed to the West.  For that reason, Apollos may very well have been a Deacon, or he may simply have been performing a ministry as an evangelist.  Either could be correct.  That you insist that during a time frame, that Apollos could not have been ordained, is simply unfounded.  We do not know.  At that time, had he been ordained by just Presbyters, it would have been acceptable, and we simply do not know the whereabouts of others as there is just no record of their day to day activities.  We simply don't know who may have been in contact with him, that could have ordained him.  In any event, I don't consider it terribly important.

I think the basic differences are simply going to remain.  I view the reality of Apostolic Succession the way all of Christendom did for over 1,500 years.  I know of no text in existence, from the early Church, that teaches anything different from that or doubts it in any way.  The Church for it's first several centuries had no New Testament to examine.  What manuscripts that existed, did, in few copies and along side dozens of other texts that wound up not being included by the Catholic Church in the Biblical cannon that became the NT.  It was vital for believers in the early Church to know that their Bishop had the authority of the Apostles.  It is just as vital for them today.

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted Bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

It is necessary to obey those who are the Presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the Episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion."

Saint Irenaeus, Against Heresies 180 AD.

As a Catholic, it is comforting to be able to read the writings of one of our Bishops from over eighteen centuries ago, and be in full accord with him today.  The Holy Spirit has kept the promises of Christ.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Jun 02, 2009 - 20:05:29

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Jun 01, 2009 - 21:55:30
No, you gave me some names of people of who we don't know whether they were ordained, or even holders of office necessarily, who may or may not have been ordained at some time, but to you that is "proof".

Proof was your thing from the get go.  I have stated all along that a negative premise (that XXX never happened) is by definition not absolutely provable.  I have nonetheless offered evidence to try to establish a likelihood that Apollos was recognized in the function of one of your 3 "ordained offices," Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, and to establish the unlikelihood that he was ordained before he began excercising the functions of said office.  In short, I have argued on your terms from the get go.

QuoteWhy would the Apostle Paul be ordained?

The Apostle Paul was ordained in Acts 13 due to a word of prophecy specifically commissioning Paul to do certain work.  In short, God needed to tell Paul to go, because he was contentedly sitting at Antioch rather than going "to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel."  Interestingly, Paul is recorded as completing a ministry (diakonia) in Acts 12, right before that.

QuoteWhy would he ordain Timothy?

Paul and the presbytery laid hands on Timothy to impart an unspecified gift because there was a specific word of prophecy that directed such to be done.  Paul later urged him to exercise that gift and study more.  Authority is not what is being spoken of as being transmitted by the imposition of hands here, it seems.

QuoteWhy would he send Timothy to ordain specifically?

Paul didn't send Timothy to ordain anyone to my knowledge.  He sent Titus...ummmm...he left Titus...in Crete to "set in order the things that are wanting," which including the appointing of elders in every city, because the Cretans were permeated with Judaizers,  and "deceivers," who were teaching aberrant doctrines "for filthy lucre's sake."  In short, there was a specially bad problem with false teachers in Crete fleecing the flock, so it was necessary to have someone go through town by town and sort out the good guys from the bad guys.  Interestingly, the Greek words Paul uses do not indicate that this "ordination" was done with any imposition of hands, or by the mutual consent of the presbytery or congregations.  It's a simple selection by a committee of 1; not an election.

If I may digress a bit....  I believe that this is because the laying on of hands is for the transmission of something.  Here we agree.  But you think it is authority that is transmitted.  However, I would counter that what is transmitted is a spiritual gift for ministry.  Much of the book of 1 Corinthians deals with a number of such gifts.  While it may be that the gift(s) - or rather, the exercise of the gift(s) - causes one to be seen as authoritative, this does not necessarily mean that authority itself is what has been transmitted.

Such a gift appears to be what Paul is speaking of to Timothy in the prior section, though what the gift is, is not mentioned.

The most common thing to be transmitted by the imposition of hands, though, was health.  Oftentimes, this was done because the person in question was ill.  However, it was also done occasionally to those who were well, as a blessing.  For instance, when one was leaving, such as in the example of Paul's ordination above.

QuoteWhy did the other Apostles insist on ordination into churchly office, when of course, it is all so unnecessary?

I don't recall any of the apostles ever insisting on ordination...unless of course you're referring to this:

Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Could you show me where they insisted on ordination?  Yes, please show me where anyone in the NT ever insisted on being ordained.  This particular belief seems to be exactly the opposite of all of Jesus teachings in the gospels on service and leadership.

QuoteWhy was Apollos exempt?  Your model is also one that even most Protestant denominations do not accept.  Your argument is nonsensical.

Exempt from being recognized as a leader by the local presbytery?  I'm sure that at some point, somebody probably "ordained" good ol' Apollos, whether it was with a vote of confidence or a prayer of blessing.  It might even have been accompanied by the bestowal of a gift via the imposition of hands.  I am sure that it did not hold the pomp of the modern ritual.  I'm pretty sure that it was after he had already been leading by action for a while.

What I've been attempting to demonstrate is that Apollos (and really, everyone in the NT) did not have to wait to "get their ordination" to make converts, to cast out demons, to baptize, to exhort, to commend, to mentor, correct, lead, or serve their fellows.  Those who WERE RECOGNIZED via ordination, were recognized specifically because of what they were doing.  Ordination, like all certifications, follows after what one has accomplished; it does not precede it.

Quote

QuoteI've also written multiple paragraphs, a short paper really, citing multiple verses on the nature of diakonia in the New Testament being a matter of leadership by service, but these you do not so much as acknowledge.  You might respond to the opposing point of view that I've presented.  But instead you sit and claim that I've never made another argument.  Prepostorous.

You haven't.  You have not named one, single, solitary, person, who was even a Deacon, who you can prove was not ordained.  Don't think so?  Then name one.  The absence of information is not "proof" of anything.  It is a silly and nonsensical argument to make.

That's not even what I was talking about here.  I'm talking about the defining of the word deacon as a servant, I'm talking about this:

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister

I'm talking about how leadership in the church is not defined by a succession, but by service.  I'm talking about how leadership in the church is not exercised as an authority that compels.

Long post continued...

lol

the heirarchy of the church are our servants as well as our leaders, just as Jesus stated, that the leader among you is the greatest servant.

wow, what wycliffian planet did you drop down from?

peace, papist

Quote from: papist1 on Mon Jul 27, 2009 - 22:20:39
the heirarchy of the church are our servants as well as our leaders, just as Jesus stated, that the leader among you is the greatest servant.

wow, what wycliffian planet did you drop down from?

peace, papist

That was never in dispute in this thread.

The discussion here was about where ecclesiastical authority comes from.

I maintained the point that authority was a consequence of servanthood, in opposition to the RCC's belief in authority as a result of apostolic succession.

If you have something to add, please do.  If you just didn't want to miss posting in every thread on the first page of this forum, by all means continue down that path instead.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Jul 28, 2009 - 18:51:38

Quote from: papist1 on Mon Jul 27, 2009 - 22:20:39
the heirarchy of the church are our servants as well as our leaders, just as Jesus stated, that the leader among you is the greatest servant.

wow, what wycliffian planet did you drop down from?

peace, papist

That was never in dispute in this thread.

The discussion here was about where ecclesiastical authority comes from.

I maintained the point that authority was a consequence of servanthood, in opposition to the RCC's belief in authority as a result of apostolic succession.

If you have something to add, please do.  If you just didn't want to miss posting in every thread on the first page of this forum, by all means continue down that path instead.

The church would agree with you that authority is a consequence of servanthood.

Jesus gave the church apostles to serve and guide and feed the sheep and lambs and asked peter to be his earthly shepherd of this flock(His whole flock, lambs and sheep).

As a result, these servants of Christ and His flock are equally leaders and have the promise from Christ that the gates of hell shall never prevail against them, and they have not. 

Jesus, as He sent these bishops out two by two told them "he who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, showing that they had his authority in what they preached.

peace, papist

Quote from: papist1 on Sat Aug 01, 2009 - 01:29:39

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Jul 28, 2009 - 18:51:38

Quote from: papist1 on Mon Jul 27, 2009 - 22:20:39
the heirarchy of the church are our servants as well as our leaders, just as Jesus stated, that the leader among you is the greatest servant.

wow, what wycliffian planet did you drop down from?

peace, papist

That was never in dispute in this thread.

The discussion here was about where ecclesiastical authority comes from.

I maintained the point that authority was a consequence of servanthood, in opposition to the RCC's belief in authority as a result of apostolic succession.

If you have something to add, please do.  If you just didn't want to miss posting in every thread on the first page of this forum, by all means continue down that path instead.

The church would agree with you that authority is a consequence of servanthood.

Jesus gave the church apostles to serve and guide and feed the sheep and lambs and asked peter to be his earthly shepherd of this flock(His whole flock, lambs and sheep).

As a result, these servants of Christ and His flock are equally leaders and have the promise from Christ that the gates of hell shall never prevail against them, and they have not. 

Jesus, as He sent these bishops out two by two told them "he who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, showing that they had his authority in what they preached.

peace, papist

And how does that pertain to ordination, papist?

Specifically, my contentions here have been that ordination does not confer authority, and that ordination merely recognizes authority that is derived from service.

Quote from: papist1 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 07:03:38
Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.

The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.

Let me give you an example.

I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches.   I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?

I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.

Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism?  How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?

Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?   

This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct?  This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.

BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)

Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves?  Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.

The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?

In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.

So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?

peace, papist

No matter who tell one anything about God, they are to ask Jesus if it is right or wrong.

(1 Corinthians 2:716)

Quote from: Giver on Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 11:35:49

Quote from: papist1 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 07:03:38
Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.

The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.

Let me give you an example.

I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches.   I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?

I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.

Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism?  How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?

Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?   

This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct?  This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.

BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)

Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves?  Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.

The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?

In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.

So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?

peace, papist

No matter who tell one anything about God, they are to ask Jesus if it is right or wrong.

(1 Corinthians 2:716)”The hidden wisdom of God which we teach in our mysteries is the wisdom that God predestined to be for our glory before the ages began.  It is a wisdom that none of the masters of this age have ever known, or they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory, we teach what scripture called the things that no eye has seen and no ear has heard, things beyond the mind of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him. These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God.  Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God, to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us.  Therefore we teach, not in the way in which philosophy is taught, but in the way that the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually.  An unspiritual person is one who does not accept anything of the Spirit of God: he sees it all as nonsense; it is beyond his understanding because it can only be understood by means of the Spirit.  A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything, and his own value is not to be judged by other men. As scripture says;’ who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him?’  But we are those who have the mind of Christ.”


In a Church service Paul tells us that two or three prophets should speak and the rest should attend to them.  In this case the Holy Spirit may give someone a better understanding or way to explain what God wanted people to understand.

What it all comes to is we are to let God teach us not man. 

All here claim that God is guiding them. That is not the question.

The question is the means by which God reaches us with His Truth.

Where in the NT does it say that we need a book with everything in it, and thats it?
Did the apostles operate that way?
Did the people always go to a book to find their answers, or did they go to the church leaders Jesus appointed?

The answer is emphatically, no. The Bible never claims to be the sole authority, it never shows us that it is somehow the sole authority, and the people within the NT did not operate in this fashion concerning their concerns about doctrine and the like. They went to the church.

There was a chuirch long before there was a book called the Bible.

peace, papist

Quote from: papist1 on Sun Aug 09, 2009 - 16:28:20

Quote from: Giver on Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 11:35:49

Quote from: papist1 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 07:03:38
Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.

The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.

Let me give you an example.

I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches.   I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?

I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.

Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism?  How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?

Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?   

This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct?  This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.

BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)

Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves?  Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.

The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?

In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.

So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?

peace, papist

No matter who tell one anything about God, they are to ask Jesus if it is right or wrong.

(1 Corinthians 2:716)”The hidden wisdom of God which we teach in our mysteries is the wisdom that God predestined to be for our glory before the ages began.  It is a wisdom that none of the masters of this age have ever known, or they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory, we teach what scripture called the things that no eye has seen and no ear has heard, things beyond the mind of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him. These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God.  Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God, to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us.  Therefore we teach, not in the way in which philosophy is taught, but in the way that the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually.  An unspiritual person is one who does not accept anything of the Spirit of God: he sees it all as nonsense; it is beyond his understanding because it can only be understood by means of the Spirit.  A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything, and his own value is not to be judged by other men. As scripture says;’ who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him?’  But we are those who have the mind of Christ.”


In a Church service Paul tells us that two or three prophets should speak and the rest should attend to them.  In this case the Holy Spirit may give someone a better understanding or way to explain what God wanted people to understand.

What it all comes to is we are to let God teach us not man. 

All here claim that God is guiding them. That is not the question.

The question is the means by which God reaches us with His Truth.

Where in the NT does it say that we need a book with everything in it, and thats it?
Did the apostles operate that way?
Did the people always go to a book to find their answers, or did they go to the church leaders Jesus appointed?

The answer is emphatically, no. The Bible never claims to be the sole authority, it never shows us that it is somehow the sole authority, and the people within the NT did not operate in this fashion concerning their concerns about doctrine and the like. They went to the church.

There was a chuirch long before there was a book called the Bible.

peace, papist

The Bible is the Written Word of God, and as such anything that contradict that Word is not of God.  The Church contradicts the written Word of God.  So it must not be of God.
Christians are all given the Holy Spirit.  It is each person's responsibility to listen to the Holy Spirit and do what he tells us.
What others say is not something we are held responsible for.  We are going to be judge on how we lived the Word of God.  The Holy Spirit will guide us.
Galatians 5:16"Let me put it like this if you are guided by the Spirit you will be in no danger of yielding to self-indulgence....

This is a really interesting thread. I agree with the Catholic/Orthodox point of view that Jesus built a Church and that he hand-picked Apostles and that he gave these Apostles significant powers. So these were not just nice people, they had real God given authority. I also agree that the Church was careful about valid Apostolic succession so not every lunatic can claim to represent Christ's church on earth.

Having said that, unfortunately for the Catholic/Orthodox churches, the Apostolic chain somewhere, somehow became corrupted. Unfortunately, some Bishops and some Popes, throuout history, were corrupt and immoral. I believe the Catholic church acknowleges that. So I think it's fair for all faithful to not blindly obey any ordained priest/bishop because we know that, despite valid ordination, corrupt priests/bishops/popes do exist.

So on that point, I think Protestants are right that "valid" ordination is not sufficient and maybe God decides to use as servants people without valid ordination. We can not dismiss offhand every Protestant minister, as we can not accept offhand every Catholic/Orthodox priest.

In one area though I completely agree with Catholics/Orthodox and that is core dogma. The dogmas of the Protestant churches are all over the place and for me despite some corrupt popes the core dogmas of the Catholic/Orthodox churches are, well, "Orthodox"

Quote from: Angelos on Tue Aug 18, 2009 - 10:42:31
This is a really interesting thread. I agree with the Catholic/Orthodox point of view that Jesus built a Church and that he hand-picked Apostles and that he gave these Apostles significant powers. So these were not just nice people, they had real God given authority. I also agree that the Church was careful about valid Apostolic succession so not every lunatic can claim to represent Christ's church on earth.

Having said that, unfortunately for the Catholic/Orthodox churches, the Apostolic chain somewhere, somehow became corrupted. Unfortunately, some Bishops and some Popes, throuout history, were corrupt and immoral. I believe the Catholic church acknowleges that. So I think it's fair for all faithful to not blindly obey any ordained priest/bishop because we know that, despite valid ordination, corrupt priests/bishops/popes do exist.

So on that point, I think Protestants are right that "valid" ordination is not sufficient and maybe God decides to use as servants people without valid ordination. We can not dismiss offhand every Protestant minister, as we can not accept offhand every Catholic/Orthodox priest.

In one area though I completely agree with Catholics/Orthodox and that is core dogma. The dogmas of the Protestant churches are all over the place and for me despite some corrupt popes the core dogmas of the Catholic/Orthodox churches are, well, "Orthodox"

I agree, but it is so sad; close just isn't good enough.   There a so few, if any, of the elders of either Church that walk in the Spirit of the Lord.  The Churches are not walking in the Word of God, and because of that people are blindly trying to follow God with out the help of the Holy Spirit.   

Quote from: papist1 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 07:03:38
Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.

The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.

Let me give you an example.

I went to over 18 different denoms and non denoms of protestant bible believing churches.   I asked each of these pastors, who claimed the Bible Alone as their authority, what baptism was, if it was necessary, how to perform it(immersion, pouring, sprinkling of water, no water at all), and if it removed the stain of original sin from ones soul or was it just symbolic in nature?

I received several different and contradictory answers from each pastor.

Which one of these pastors was correct in their interpretation of scripture as it pertains to the utmost important doctrine of Baptism?  How do we know which one is correct? Is the definition of doctrine relative, and it does not matter what is true and what is not?

Each of these pastors would never back down from his/her own interpretation, and each would claim they are correct. This is the BIG question. Who is correct, and how do we know who is correct, and by what authority vested in the person interpreted gives them the ability and authority to make such claim as to what is deemed "true" and what is deemed "erroneous"?   

This situation is almost always turned back on scripture, for when I ask them by what authority they believe this, they inevitably answer that they are being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. So is the Holy Spirit a relativist? Does the Holy Spirit teach contradicting things from one church to another and each contradictory point of teaching is correct? In other words, when one church teaches that scripture says Baptism is not necessary, they are correct, and then when another teaches it is necessary, they are also correct?  This would be ridiculous. God is of ORDER and UNITY, not Chaos and Division. God does not contradict Himself, for He is TRUTH, and Truth does not change.

BTW, the first person to part from everyone else in their understanding of baptism was John Calvin. Does that mean that everyone else, including the original "reformers" were wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? By what measuring stick can one prove this? The Bible? of course :)

Is there a church authority that has the authority of God on doctrinal matters? It seems the apostles decided doctrinal matters IN scripture, why would God all of a sudden change His mind and let the individual start deciding these matters for themselves?  Who then can claim what heresy is, if everyone is right all of the time? There would be no heresy if this were so.

The circular argument used by most sola scripturists dos not wash, it only begs the question, again and again, "who/what is the authority on matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture"?

In my reading of scripture, I have not found any proof text for sola scriptura. @ tim 3:15-17 is far from this, as it pertains to the OT scriptures(that timothy knew from infancy) and at the end it is "useful" for "every good work" and since good works don't save us, it must not be "necessary" as most claim. I mean the apostles didn't have a new testament, nor did they have the canon of the OT which was not decided until 382ad along with the new.

So what is your authority, and if it is scripture alone, where in scripture does God teach that scripture alone is the authority. and how can one prove his authority in interpreteing scripture?

peace, papist

Holy baptism washes away sins . all sins---- past present and future.  not just the stain of original sin.

why
sola scripture
it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why

Your word is truth  John-- 17:17

God is not a man that he should lie numbers-- 23:19

also check out
jerimiah 14;14
1 thess2:13
2 tim3;16-17
all scripture is God breathed

2 nd peter 1:21
hebrews 4:12
romans 15;4
John5:39
2 timothy 3:15


and jude 4

news flash

1248-1298 Franciscan priest Peter olivia was first to anounce infallability of the pope.

1324
pope John XX11 Denounce infallability as Sataonic in the bull Qui quorundam.

Quote from: Giver on Tue Aug 18, 2009 - 21:41:45

Quote from: Angelos on Tue Aug 18, 2009 - 10:42:31
This is a really interesting thread. I agree with the Catholic/Orthodox point of view that Jesus built a Church and that he hand-picked Apostles and that he gave these Apostles significant powers. So these were not just nice people, they had real God given authority. I also agree that the Church was careful about valid Apostolic succession so not every lunatic can claim to represent Christ's church on earth.

Having said that, unfortunately for the Catholic/Orthodox churches, the Apostolic chain somewhere, somehow became corrupted. Unfortunately, some Bishops and some Popes, throuout history, were corrupt and immoral. I believe the Catholic church acknowleges that. So I think it's fair for all faithful to not blindly obey any ordained priest/bishop because we know that, despite valid ordination, corrupt priests/bishops/popes do exist.

So on that point, I think Protestants are right that "valid" ordination is not sufficient and maybe God decides to use as servants people without valid ordination. We can not dismiss offhand every Protestant minister, as we can not accept offhand every Catholic/Orthodox priest.

In one area though I completely agree with Catholics/Orthodox and that is core dogma. The dogmas of the Protestant churches are all over the place and for me despite some corrupt popes the core dogmas of the Catholic/Orthodox churches are, well, "Orthodox"

I agree, but it is so sad; close just isn't good enough.   There a so few, if any, of the elders of either Church that walk in the Spirit of the Lord.  The Churches are not walking in the Word of God, and because of that people are blindly trying to follow God with out the help of the Holy Spirit.   

I tell you the truth there is corruption through out this thing we call Christianity. Giver is right that ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that guides us into all truth. The one who learns from the spirit will walk in the spirit and be guided of Him. 

The Catholics argument here is a claim of authority passed down but that is all that they can claim. We must understand the nature of apostasy for we know that apostasy took place and it corrupted authority. Yes there was authority passed down but when ever Pride, ambition, and love of position comes in the Holy Spirit walks out. What remains then is only a religious man who claims authority not knowing the Holy Spirit is no longer guiding him.  such was the case with the Bishops of Rome Who who lied and forged their way to power desiring that they be the supreme authority of all Christiandom. and the riligious law of the land.

What does the bible tell us about the word of God.   Heb 4:12 2 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Yes the word of God is powerful and a supernatural authority for those who are of the spirit but it is only a book that is used abused as a mater of convenience  by carnal authority.   Thus the argument for authority by the RCC is just what it is and all that it is.
a carnal argument

mclees8,

I have been a Charismatic for quite a few years now, and the so called, "walking in the Spirit" has been abused a billion times more than the few mistakes that the Catholic has made.  I am still a Charismatic, but we have limited it to Praise and Worship music service only.  How can you call yourself a Christian when you don't recognize the authority of the Pope?  Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is putting different interpretations in the minds of more than 225 religions in America?  Do you believe that Jesus is a God of confusion?  Do you believe that Jesus is pulling tricks on the 225 religions?

Lets face it, Jesus gave the keys to Peter, and he was the first Pope.  Though out the New Testament the Apostles had to remind the early churches not to figure things out for themselves, or listen to false teachers.  Christians are to follow the teachings of the Pope, and that is the way Jesus intended it to be.  Which brings us up to the point of a few bread crumbs and grape juice that the Protestants call Communion in remembrance.  They can't even get that straight.

Richard

Can you show me where the word Pope appears in anything that Peter wrote?

This came up on another thread and it's important to keep in mind that the word 'Pope' is just a term of endearment that is Latin slang for, "Daddy".  We have come to identify it as the title of the Bishop of the Holy See, but he has several other titles.  Eastern Catholic Archbishops may use the title, 'Pope' as well if they wish and many have.  It is through the authority vested in him by the Church, that is key.  What he is titled is not.  He fulfills the role of Peter in being the chief earthly shepherd of the Church after our Lord's Ascension.  With the death of Judas and the ordination of Paul, the Bishops exercised their authority to guide the Church and provide for it's continuing leadership.  She does so with every passing 'Pope'.  

St. Peter was married and was probably just a simple fisherman with a limited education.  He would have been uncomfortable in a funny hat, I'm sure, but that is not a doctrinal issue of faith, just one of ascetics and custom.  Believe it or not, Catholics fully accept that the role of the Papacy has evolved over time.  The first 'Pope' who exercised his leadership authority over the whole Church, that is recorded outside of Scripture, is HH Clement I, ordained by Peter, and who helped to settle a dispute over displaced ministers in Corinth.  The history of Pope's exercising authority has had it's ups and downs, their right to do so, has not.  A Pope's infallibility is intertwined with the infallibility of the whole Church.  Peter exercised it when he was brow beaten by Paul, and the Holy Spirit, into recognizing that gentiles did not need to be circumcised.  None of these men were perfect, and in complete contradiction to what one poster previously stated, even with pride and imperfections, (Even Peter denied Christ three times and was also told, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" for his failures.), the Holy Spirit does not leave the Church, when pride, sin, or corruption enters.  If that be so, then Christ would have to be lying when He promised at Pentecost that he would send the Holy Spirit to reside with the Church, "until the end of time."  In that, the Church has infallibility on matters of faith and morals, the interpretation of the Word and practice of the faith.

The notion of the Church being governed by a 'congregational' polity may appeal to man's taste since the Reformation, and with the spread of Enlightenment ideas, but Christ has a Kingdom and not a democracy.  Protestantism, in essence, is a democracy.  Everybody gets to vote on what they want to believe, i.e., how they interpret Scripture.  If enough don't like that, well then they just leave and start their own, "church".  But Holy Scripture has a very different model.  Christ's first act of His ministry was to go out, find twelve ordinary sinners, and invest them with immense authority.  To speak and act in His name.  To be His 'vicar', His stand in after His Ascension.  Scripture clearly says this authority was passed on through the laying on of hands at ordination.  There is no Christian historical evidence of any other model.   There were Christian groups that may not have liked it, we know that from Paul's consternation with them and with those who acted as ministers, as Paul said, "without a mandate from us."  Very telling, that line of Paul's.  A "mandate".  That is what Holy Orders are.  The "mandate" of the one Body of Christ to preach and teach in His name.  

It's still apples and oranges.

It's still tradition versus Scripture, and there is nothing to be said, if the Word of God, the Bible, is not regarded as the final authority.

Period.

That idea is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious, that few people ever laid eyes on an authentic copy of a Bible, and after the fall of the Empire, few could read it.  Do you think that the lack of printing presses affected the salvation of those who could not peruse Scripture as we have the luxury of doing?

Who do you think decided, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, on what the canon of the Bible was?  Answer;  The Bishops and scholars of the Catholic Church.

dk:

Wrong.

The popes and bishops of Rome had nothing to do with the books of the New Testament.

Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians stick to the Bible's authority, period.

I'm busy and I will go do something else, Friend.

Quote from: desertknight on Tue Sep 29, 2009 - 16:46:34
That idea is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen. Do you think that the lack of printing presses affected the salvation of those who could not peruse Scripture as we have the luxury of doing?

Who do you think decided, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, on what the canon of the Bible was?  Answer;  The Bishops and theologians of the Catholic Church.

There were, and are, dozens of New Testament apocrypha 'Gospels' that are in existence.  The New Testament is only the New Testament because the Bishops of the Church, exercising their authority, decided what was what, and decreed it so over time.  

Quote from: banished on Tue Sep 29, 2009 - 10:48:32
mclees8,

I have been a Charismatic for quite a few years now, and the so called, "walking in the Spirit" has been abused a billion times more than the few mistakes that the Catholic has made.  I am still a Charismatic, but we have limited it to Praise and Worship music service only.  How can you call yourself a Christian when you don't recognize the authority of the Pope?  Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is putting different interpretations in the minds of more than 225 religions in America?  Do you believe that Jesus is a God of confusion?  Do you believe that Jesus is pulling tricks on the 225 religions?

Lets face it, Jesus gave the keys to Peter, and he was the first Pope.  Though out the New Testament the Apostles had to remind the early churches not to figure things out for themselves, or listen to false teachers.  Christians are to follow the teachings of the Pope, and that is the way Jesus intended it to be.  Which brings us up to the point of a few bread crumbs and grape juice that the Protestants call Communion in remembrance.  They can't even get that straight.


Richard

What does Charismatic have to do with walking in the Spirit? Its not just praise and worship or acting all spiritual. You can say I am Charismatic  in background . I was Assemblies of God. But what is that? You are right that there is much confusion and abuse throughout Christianity. So who walks in the Spirit ? Is it one who acts and  goes through a lot of so called spiritual motions. Or is it one who genuinely Loves Christ  and follows Him and is becoming like Him in his heart mind and spirit.?

Jesus is not pulling tricks on anyone. He already knows who it is that love Him and He has no pet denomination  Catholic or Protestant. How about you ?Do you love Him? Why so much the emphasis on the ecclesiastical  hierarchy. Yes we are to obey our leaders but Jesus said that about the hypocritical Pharisees  also. Why will God choose you to be with Him in Heaven. Will it be because you obeyed the pope or will he see you as one who loves Him. The pope is a man but Jesus is Lord..

You say the church is one and not multiple denominations  like the Protestants.  You are right. You say the RCC is the One apostolic Mother church and was the original church founded of Christ. You are wrong for all that it stands on, its power, position  and religious authority was not the basis for His church. Salvation is not positional like what church order you are of.. What the RCC became was not the Church founded b y Christ Christ church was never to be entangled in the political moral fabrics of this present world Whom Satan is prince. Let me say it again. Salvation is not positionally achieved but it is first personally and spiritual relationship with the Father who desires those who Worship Him as being heavenly and not earthly. .

Look at the story of the women at the well John chapter 4. The Ladies question was where should we worship. Our father worship on this Mountain but the Jews say that is Jerusalem Where one must be of the Jews. Well Now this argument was purely one of position. Where do we find true worship and salvation? Look at what Jesus told the women.    21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

Ponder what he said to her. Salvation is no longer a positional thing. It is opened up to all who will recognize Christ is Lord. Those who first Love Him for who he is And where he sits at the throne of God. Not founded on earthy worldly things but Spiritual relation that is first personal before it is congregational.

So how is it that  the apostate church lost it?  It loses it when its affections are misplaced.  It is apostate when it centers herself in the Political Moral fabrics of this world and is focused upon its position and religious authority  in the world which misleads and misguides the church into the very arguments you defend here   

The church is not a place or thing. It is not centered on men. All this will perish in the end You and I sir must refocus on who we are in Christ and how we reflect that in our personal walk every day. Listen I am not saying that Catholics or even Protestants are not sincere. Even Saul was sincere yet he still had not experience the truth of Christ until Jesus confronted him on the Damascus road.  From that day forward he was re-focused on the truth that is Christ Jesus 

So what are you defending. The positional religious authority or should you be re-focused on Christ and your relationship with Him.Who is the church ? Is it not all who Love Him and worship in spirit and in truth. It is not focused on the world and its position in it but on His second coming

d:

No; those of us who don't believe in so called Apostolic Succession can't accept that. The original Apostles are a different matter.

Quote from: desertknight on Tue Sep 29, 2009 - 16:57:05
There were, and are, dozens of New Testament apocrypha 'Gospels' that are in existence.  The New Testament is only the New Testament because the Bishops of the Church, exercising their authority, decided what was what, and decreed it so over time.  

Quote from: farouk on Wed Sep 30, 2009 - 07:22:29
d:

No; those of us who don't believe in so called Apostolic Succession can't accept that. The original Apostles are a different matter.

Quote from: desertknight on Tue Sep 29, 2009 - 16:57:05
There were, and are, dozens of New Testament apocrypha 'Gospels' that are in existence.  The New Testament is only the New Testament because the Bishops of the Church, exercising their authority, decided what was what, and decreed it so over time.  

Just curious, where do you think the canon of the New Testament came from then?   

The universal church prior to the romanization of the faith.

Quote from: Tantor on Wed Sep 30, 2009 - 09:00:12
The universal church prior to the romanization of the faith.

OK, ignoring that there was such a thing for the moment, how did that come about?  I mean, no matter where you look for an historic record on the canon of the NT, it was one that was evaluated, sifted, and eventualy, accepted by the Bishops of the Church, who were of course, only regarded as Bishops through their holding of the Apostolic Succession.  Although the canonization did not take place in one event, in every step, there were the Bishops and Councils of the Catholic Church....

"The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt, Festal Letter 39. Also cited is the Council of Rome, but not without controversy. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted at the Third Council of Carthage in 397 and 419."

From Wiki.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time.

The standards for developing the canon in the first place are reasonable and publicly available.

The fact that protestants hold to the same canon (with the exception of the Apocryphal books) is due to the grace of God.

But then again, I hold some other early church writings almost on par with scripture.. Methesus letter to Diognetus being one of them.. and then possibly the diadache.

The former being a wonderful example of how early christians acted and approached living among non-christians and what they thought their place in the world was.  There are many things in that letter that would be of great value to the church today as providing insight has to how Christians should act today.

mclees8,

You have given me enough in that message to keep me busy for a month. Let's take the first paragraph:

(quote)

What does Charismatic have to do with walking in the Spirit? Its not just praise and worship or acting all spiritual. You can say I am Charismatic  in background . I was Assemblies of God. But what is that? You are right that there is much confusion and abuse throughout Christianity. So who walks in the Spirit ? Is it one who acts and  goes through a lot of so called spiritual motions. Or is it one who genuinely Loves Christ  and follows Him and is becoming like Him in his heart mind and spirit.?

(end of quote)

First, I have a digital version of the Catechism, a few versions of the Bible, a Concordance, etc that are loaded on my hard disk.  Rather than me trying to sound like a theologian, lets just talk one Christian to another.  Basically, most Catholics view you guys as half baked Christians.  There is nothing more disappointing than to bite into a nice cup cake only to find it uncooked inside.  Then there is a tendency for Protestants to believe their own bull and then associate themselves with a hand full of Bible verses.  That pratice is where the abuse of "walking in the Spirit" comes from.  Half baked Christians walking around like flakes tell everyone that God told me this and God told me that.  Most Catholic leave that kind of stuff up to the Pope.  That way we are not all over the map like the Protestants are.  And like I posted earlier, that is the way Jesus intended it to be when He gave the keys to Peter.  If Jesus wanted a million individual churches all believing their own bull He wouldn't have handed the keys to one uneducated fisherman named Peter.  They had smart people back then too.

All Christian have a relationship with Jesus in one form or another, and it's not for us to judge what is in another man's heart.  It really cheapens the Christian Faith when we judge the other guys relationship with Jesus, whether it be Sacramental, through his mother Mary, or walking around like a flake telling people that the Spirit told me this while I was driving down the freeway on my way church.

I would like to stay on topic, because the authority that Jesus gave to Peter still stands today, and the Protestants don't have a leg to stand on.  It's not what is in the other Christians heart, but rather it's the authority that Jesus himself handed to Peter.

Quote from: Tantor on Tue Sep 29, 2009 - 10:49:49
Can you show me where the word Pope appears in anything that Peter wrote?

Sure, that's easy:

Saint Peter's view preserved in the Apostolic Constitutions comment on the appointment of Saint Linus as Rome's first Bishop. Saint Peter writes: "Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these: ... Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter." Peter's words are credible since Paul arrived in Rome prior to Peter, and therefore Paul was in a more likely position to appoint a Bishop.

And of course, same St Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy [II Tim 4:21]. His successor was St Anacletus. And so goes the successors of the Bishop of Rome up to the present day. It's not a random occurrence like some would like us to believe.

Don't quote me on this, but I think St. Clement was Peter's successor?  The Church records contain the Clementine Homilies (AD 221) if any Protestants want to read the original teachings of the Church.  Those are your roots also.

Quote from: papist1 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 07:03:38
Most debates in these types of forums are secondary topics.

The actual topic we should be discussing is AUTHORITY.

EXACTLY!  If we can established that Christ built only one church and that Church is the Catholic Church then we can believe that whatever doctrines she pronounces are true and of Christ because Christ Himself promised that He will not allow the gates of hell to overcome her and that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide her  into all truth.

Quote from: banished on Thu Oct 01, 2009 - 11:07:46
mclees8,

You have given me enough in that message to keep me busy for a month. Let's take the first paragraph:

(quote)

What does Charismatic have to do with walking in the Spirit? Its not just praise and worship or acting all spiritual. You can say I am Charismatic  in background . I was Assemblies of God. But what is that? You are right that there is much confusion and abuse throughout Christianity. So who walks in the Spirit ? Is it one who acts and  goes through a lot of so called spiritual motions. Or is it one who genuinely Loves Christ  and follows Him and is becoming like Him in his heart mind and spirit.?

(end of quote)

First, I have a digital version of the Catechism, a few versions of the Bible, a Concordance, etc that are loaded on my hard disk.  Rather than me trying to sound like a theologian, lets just talk one Christian to another.  Basically, most Catholics view you guys as half baked Christians.  There is nothing more disappointing than to bite into a nice cup cake only to find it uncooked inside.  Then there is a tendency for Protestants to believe their own bull and then associate themselves with a hand full of Bible verses.  That pratice is where the abuse of "walking in the Spirit" comes from.  Half baked Christians walking around like flakes tell everyone that God told me this and God told me that.  Most Catholic leave that kind of stuff up to the Pope.  That way we are not all over the map like the Protestants are.  And like I posted earlier, that is the way Jesus intended it to be when He gave the keys to Peter.  If Jesus wanted a million individual churches all believing their own bull He wouldn't have handed the keys to one uneducated fisherman named Peter.  They had smart people back then too.

All Christian have a relationship with Jesus in one form or another, and it's not for us to judge what is in another man's heart.  It really cheapens the Christian Faith when we judge the other guys relationship with Jesus, whether it be Sacramental, through his mother Mary, or walking around like a flake telling people that the Spirit told me this while I was driving down the freeway on my way church.

I would like to stay on topic, because the authority that Jesus gave to Peter still stands today, and the Protestants don't have a leg to stand on.  It's not what is in the other Christians heart, but rather it's the authority that Jesus himself handed to Peter.

dear Banished why do you call yourself banished. Banished from what. sorry I jus couldn't help my self. I thought i was on topic. it was about RCC authority wasn' it.

Let me ask you a question if I may. Will the pope be there when you stand before the Lord. Will your record of RCC loyalty be what impresses Him or will he look at you and how much you loved Christ in your daily walk. Will it be how many times you went to mass?

When i read my Bible I learn all that Jesus and the apostles taught. Of course we need teachers, but it was ultimately the Holy spirit who teaches  all thing concerning Christ. You see the apostles did first teach by word of mouth but they were also filled  with the Holy Spirit. When they wrote the Epistles they were inspired of him, and thank God they were preseved to bless all future generations. There is much argument about bible only and I agree it must be taught correctly, But I also no that with out the Holy spirit to help guide us we can be mislead and often are by doctrines and traditions of men. Listen I don't ever say God told me this or that. Most of what I speak comes good old fashioned God give commen sense and application. You focus to much on the Magisterium.       

God bless   

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 17:13:50

Quote from: banished on Thu Oct 01, 2009 - 11:07:46
mclees8,

You have given me enough in that message to keep me busy for a month. Let's take the first paragraph:

(quote)

What does Charismatic have to do with walking in the Spirit? Its not just praise and worship or acting all spiritual. You can say I am Charismatic  in background . I was Assemblies of God. But what is that? You are right that there is much confusion and abuse throughout Christianity. So who walks in the Spirit ? Is it one who acts and  goes through a lot of so called spiritual motions. Or is it one who genuinely Loves Christ  and follows Him and is becoming like Him in his heart mind and spirit.?

(end of quote)

First, I have a digital version of the Catechism, a few versions of the Bible, a Concordance, etc that are loaded on my hard disk.  Rather than me trying to sound like a theologian, lets just talk one Christian to another.  Basically, most Catholics view you guys as half baked Christians.  There is nothing more disappointing than to bite into a nice cup cake only to find it uncooked inside.  Then there is a tendency for Protestants to believe their own bull and then associate themselves with a hand full of Bible verses.  That pratice is where the abuse of "walking in the Spirit" comes from.  Half baked Christians walking around like flakes tell everyone that God told me this and God told me that.  Most Catholic leave that kind of stuff up to the Pope.  That way we are not all over the map like the Protestants are.  And like I posted earlier, that is the way Jesus intended it to be when He gave the keys to Peter.  If Jesus wanted a million individual churches all believing their own bull He wouldn't have handed the keys to one uneducated fisherman named Peter.  They had smart people back then too.

All Christian have a relationship with Jesus in one form or another, and it's not for us to judge what is in another man's heart.  It really cheapens the Christian Faith when we judge the other guys relationship with Jesus, whether it be Sacramental, through his mother Mary, or walking around like a flake telling people that the Spirit told me this while I was driving down the freeway on my way church.

I would like to stay on topic, because the authority that Jesus gave to Peter still stands today, and the Protestants don't have a leg to stand on.  It's not what is in the other Christians heart, but rather it's the authority that Jesus himself handed to Peter.

dear Banished why do you call yourself banished. Banished from what. sorry I jus couldn't help my self. I thought i was on topic. it was about RCC authority wasn' it.

Let me ask you a question if I may. Will the pope be there when you stand before the Lord. Will your record of RCC loyalty be what impresses Him or will he look at you and how much you loved Christ in your daily walk. Will it be how many times you went to mass?

When i read my Bible I learn all that Jesus and the apostles taught. Of course we need teachers, but it was ultimately the Holy spirit who teaches  all thing concerning Christ. You see the apostles did first teach by word of mouth but they were also filled  with the Holy Spirit. When they wrote the Epistles they were inspired of him, and thank God they were preseved to bless all future generations. There is much argument about bible only and I agree it must be taught correctly, But I also no that with out the Holy spirit to help guide us we can be mislead and often are by doctrines and traditions of men. Listen I don't ever say God told me this or that. Most of what I speak comes good old fashioned God give commen sense and application. You focus to much on the Magisterium.       

God bless   

mclees8,

Both my wife an I are excommunicated (banished) from the Catholic Church, because we were married as Born Again Christians.  Neither of us will ever denounce our Protestant marriage, so we will be there with you and the other Born Again Christians.  What I don't understand is why you are going around kicking the Catholics?  You chose to go the Born Again route, so quit causing trouble.  The Catholics will go in first, and if there is any seats left the Born Again and other lesser denominations will enter.  Remember that Jesus gave the Keys to Peter, and he will be there to greet us at the gate.

Lets focus on the fact that Jesus gave the authority to Peter, and not to Born Again Christians.   The Born Again will go in single file, and the entire Catholic Church will go in as a unit. 

Quote from: banished on Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 17:57:51

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 17:13:50

Quote from: banished on Thu Oct 01, 2009 - 11:07:46
mclees8,

You have given me enough in that message to keep me busy for a month. Let's take the first paragraph:

(quote)

What does Charismatic have to do with walking in the Spirit? Its not just praise and worship or acting all spiritual. You can say I am Charismatic  in background . I was Assemblies of God. But what is that? You are right that there is much confusion and abuse throughout Christianity. So who walks in the Spirit ? Is it one who acts and  goes through a lot of so called spiritual motions. Or is it one who genuinely Loves Christ  and follows Him and is becoming like Him in his heart mind and spirit.?

(end of quote)

First, I have a digital version of the Catechism, a few versions of the Bible, a Concordance, etc that are loaded on my hard disk.  Rather than me trying to sound like a theologian, lets just talk one Christian to another.  Basically, most Catholics view you guys as half baked Christians.  There is nothing more disappointing than to bite into a nice cup cake only to find it uncooked inside.  Then there is a tendency for Protestants to believe their own bull and then associate themselves with a hand full of Bible verses.  That pratice is where the abuse of "walking in the Spirit" comes from.  Half baked Christians walking around like flakes tell everyone that God told me this and God told me that.  Most Catholic leave that kind of stuff up to the Pope.  That way we are not all over the map like the Protestants are.  And like I posted earlier, that is the way Jesus intended it to be when He gave the keys to Peter.  If Jesus wanted a million individual churches all believing their own bull He wouldn't have handed the keys to one uneducated fisherman named Peter.  They had smart people back then too.

All Christian have a relationship with Jesus in one form or another, and it's not for us to judge what is in another man's heart.  It really cheapens the Christian Faith when we judge the other guys relationship with Jesus, whether it be Sacramental, through his mother Mary, or walking around like a flake telling people that the Spirit told me this while I was driving down the freeway on my way church.

I would like to stay on topic, because the authority that Jesus gave to Peter still stands today, and the Protestants don't have a leg to stand on.  It's not what is in the other Christians heart, but rather it's the authority that Jesus himself handed to Peter.

dear Banished why do you call yourself banished. Banished from what. sorry I jus couldn't help my self. I thought i was on topic. it was about RCC authority wasn' it.

Let me ask you a question if I may. Will the pope be there when you stand before the Lord. Will your record of RCC loyalty be what impresses Him or will he look at you and how much you loved Christ in your daily walk. Will it be how many times you went to mass?

When i read my Bible I learn all that Jesus and the apostles taught. Of course we need teachers, but it was ultimately the Holy spirit who teaches  all thing concerning Christ. You see the apostles did first teach by word of mouth but they were also filled  with the Holy Spirit. When they wrote the Epistles they were inspired of him, and thank God they were preseved to bless all future generations. There is much argument about bible only and I agree it must be taught correctly, But I also no that with out the Holy spirit to help guide us we can be mislead and often are by doctrines and traditions of men. Listen I don't ever say God told me this or that. Most of what I speak comes good old fashioned God give commen sense and application. You focus to much on the Magisterium.       

God bless   

mclees8,

Both my wife an I are excommunicated (banished) from the Catholic Church, because we were married as Born Again Christians.  Neither of us will ever denounce our Protestant marriage, so we will be there with you and the other Born Again Christians.  What I don't understand is why you are going around kicking the Catholics?  You chose to go the Born Again route, so quit causing trouble.  The Catholics will go in first, and if there is any seats left the Born Again and other lesser denominations will enter.  Remember that Jesus gave the Keys to Peter, and he will be there to greet us at the gate.

Lets focus on the fact that Jesus gave the authority to Peter, and not to Born Again Christians.   The Born Again will go in single file, and the entire Catholic Church will go in as a unit. 

Well I see you are a true and blue RC at heart. And thats OK. I just don't believe that being of any denomination catholic or protestant has anything to do with ones salvation. Listen just because I don't believe in the papacy does not mean I don't respect RC's 
What is important is that we love and focus on Christ. Like I said the laity is often misguided by false teaching, tradition of men and doctrines of men.

I know the argument about Peter and I even give the benefit of the doubt. I made this case many times before. I believe there are many differences between Peter and the kind of disciple he was at the time before 100 AD and the bishops of Rome who forged their way to power to become the religious political authority of the empire in 500 AD. The question was would Peter have sat inn the same seat like the popes surrounded with grandeur wareing lavish vestments and sitting on a throne.  I don't know about you but I don't believe for one moment that he would.

God bless

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 17:13:50
When i read my Bible I learn all that Jesus and the apostles taught. 

To a degree.

If you really learn from the Bible what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

Then maybe you can do an exegesis on Matthew 16:18,  John 6 and  John 20:21

QuoteOf course we need teachers, but it was ultimately the Holy spirit who teaches  all thing concerning Christ. 

You are making a huge assumption here that it is always the Holy Spirit who is guiding you.  The devil also masquerades as an angel of light and is more than capable of guiding your reading of the Bible.

So how do you know that your reading of the Bible is truly guided byt he Spirit.

QuoteYou see the apostles did first teach by word of mouth but they were also filled  with the Holy Spirit. When they wrote the Epistles they were inspired of him, and thank God they were preseved to bless all future generations. 

Aaah, but HOW do you know that they were indeed guided by the Holy Spirit?

Before the canon of the Bible was set there were other books that did not make the cut. How sure are you that the ones that did make the cut are indeed the ones that were guided by the Holy Spirit?

QuoteThere is much argument about bible only and I agree it must be taught correctly, But I also no that with out the Holy spirit to help guide us we can be mislead 

EXACTLY!!  But that the Holy Spirit is guiding you in your reading is only an assumption.  So again, how do you know that you are being guided by the Holy Spriti?

Quoteand often are by doctrines and traditions of men.

But before Scripture was committed to the written word  they were traditions of men.  As a matter of fact the first mention of the word canon was by Pope Clement and it was not in referernce to the Bible but to the "canon of our traditions"

QuoteListen I don't ever say God told me this or that. Most of what I speak comes good old fashioned God give commen sense and application. You focus to much on the Magisterium. 

And what makes you think that  you are more knowledgeable than the Magisterium which happens to be comprised of quite a lot o erudite men well versed in the Bible?  Don't you think that rather smacks of pride and arrogance?  A disposition that is closer to the guiding of the evil one rather than the Holy Spirit?

Quote from: Magnificat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 - 04:28:46

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 17:13:50
When i read my Bible I learn all that Jesus and the apostles taught. 

To a degree.

If you really learn from the Bible what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

Then maybe you can do an exegesis on Matthew 16:18,  John 6 and  John 20:21

QuoteOf course we need teachers, but it was ultimately the Holy spirit who teaches  all thing concerning Christ. 

You are making a huge assumption here that it is always the Holy Spirit who is guiding you.  The devil also masquerades as an angel of light and is more than capable of guiding your reading of the Bible.

So how do you know that your reading of the Bible is truly guided byt he Spirit.

QuoteYou see the apostles did first teach by word of mouth but they were also filled  with the Holy Spirit. When they wrote the Epistles they were inspired of him, and thank God they were preseved to bless all future generations. 

Aaah, but HOW do you know that they were indeed guided by the Holy Spirit?

Before the canon of the Bible was set there were other books that did not make the cut. How sure are you that the ones that did make the cut are indeed the ones that were guided by the Holy Spirit?

QuoteThere is much argument about bible only and I agree it must be taught correctly, But I also no that with out the Holy spirit to help guide us we can be mislead 

EXACTLY!!  But that the Holy Spirit is guiding you in your reading is only an assumption.  So again, how do you know that you are being guided by the Holy Spriti?

Quoteand often are by doctrines and traditions of men.

But before Scripture was committed to the written word  they were traditions of men.  As a matter of fact the first mention of the word canon was by Pope Clement and it was not in referernce to the Bible but to the "canon of our traditions"

QuoteListen I don't ever say God told me this or that. Most of what I speak comes good old fashioned God give commen sense and application. You focus to much on the Magisterium. 

And what makes you think that  you are more knowledgeable than the Magisterium which happens to be comprised of quite a lot o erudite men well versed in the Bible?  Don't you think that rather smacks of pride and arrogance?  A disposition that is closer to the guiding of the evil one rather than the Holy Spirit?

Well you say how do I know. I know by faith for all the we are given in the word of God must taken by faith. Hebrew 11:16 says  But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
By the same we must take Gods word by faith



As for the rest of you comments. you really don't know to much about the Holy Spirit do you? It takes more than human wisdom or degrees in theology . Nickodemus was a very learned Pharisee who knew all about the laws of Moses and old Testament scripture but he was carnal in his thinking. Jesus cut straight to his problem and it is still the problem with carnal scholars. (You must be Born again of the Spirit. ) Note Jesus did not go into length with him about it. You are either spiritual and understand the things of the spirit or you do not.  the Holy spirit gives revelation and that is also taken by faith.

Some of grandest bible Scholars may know no more about the things of the spirit than a fly.
The bible tells us of two kinds of people. the carnal and the spiritual. and by that I don't mean people who just act spiritual, but truly understand the things of the spirit Listen to what Jesus said about this in john  14:16

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
This was the promise that was fullfilled on the day of pentecost where 120 waited for the promise 4:1,8
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 B[but ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.[/b]

Just look at the disciples Like Peter himself whom was no Scholar but an uneducated fisherman. Yet when he was spirit filled he confounded the the Pharisees. what does scripture say, that God shall use the Humble things of this world to confound the wise.

How is that an uneducated fisherman confound the highly educated councils

No i am not any great theologian and only have a GED education but i understand the things of the spirit as much as any of them. How about you?

Shall we go on. the book of John is centered on the Holy Spirit. Second two Jesus and cross of salvation  He is the most important figure in scripture yet the least understood.

God bless