Christian Forums

A short but powerful video of the words of the Church Fathers, most of whom died for their faith, on why not...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=l89_4H8Cyzg

"Why not?" Look at the Biblical proof......"And the disciples were first called Protestants in Antioch."  Nah, just kidding, "the disciples were first called Catholics in Antioch."

Dust off those old Bibles and see what the disciples were "first called in Antioch."..... Now turn to Isaiah and read verse 2 of chapter 62.

Now, what's wrong with that "new name" that came from "the mouth of the Lord"? Try it, you might like it...

Quote from: pointmade on Sun Mar 21, 2010 - 07:59:36
"Why not?" Look at the Biblical proof......"And the disciples were first called Protestants in Antioch."  Nah, just kidding, "the disciples were first called Catholics in Antioch."

Dust off those old Bibles and see what the disciples were "first called in Antioch."..... Now turn to Isaiah and read verse 2 of chapter 62.

Now, what's wrong with that "new name" that came from "the mouth of the Lord"? Try it, you might like it...

So in other words, you didn't actually bother to watch the video or you have no comment on it.  Don't you feel the Early Church Fathers in it have anything important to say, that you think worth commenting on?

Bump

"So in other words, you didn't actually bother to watch the video or you have no comment on it.  Don't you feel the Early Church Fathers in it have anything important to say, that you think worth commenting on?'

Not really.....the "early church fathers" were honorable men, but were not inspired;  most hermenutically not sound in exposition.  The "Early Church Fathers" did not write commentaries; they were apologists;  they were primarily concerned with problems and issues in the Church. They used their speculative theories as the starting point. They used paraphrased more than direct citation and quotation. They often appealed to apocryphal literature, and often leaned toward allegorism. and neglected the order and context of passages........ Have you studied the Hermeneutical principle of the Alexandrian School?

Sorry, I do not go into "viedos." I had my computer hard drive wiped out by a virus for doing just that...so please, forgive me for not watching...... 

Quote from: pointmade on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 13:25:49
"So in other words, you didn't actually bother to watch the video or you have no comment on it.  Don't you feel the Early Church Fathers in it have anything important to say, that you think worth commenting on?'

Not really.....the "early church fathers" were honorable men, but were not inspired;  most hermenutically not sound in exposition.  The "Early Church Fathers" did not write commentaries; they were apologists;  they were primarily concerned with problems and issues in the Church. They used their speculative theories as the starting point. They used paraphrased more than direct citation and quotation. They often appealed to apocryphal literature, and often leaned toward allegorism. and neglected the order and context of passages........ Have you studied the Hermeneutical principle of the Alexandrian School?

Sorry, I do not go into "viedos." I had my computer hard drive wiped out by a virus for doing just that...so please, forgive me for not watching...... 

You are full of opinions about the ECFs "not inspired", "not sound in exposition", "speculative theories", "neglected the order and context of passages".

You just mean you don't agree with them. But who are you to make such a sweeping dismissal of these men?

What are your qualifications for these generalisations?

Quote from: pointmade on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 13:25:49
"So in other words, you didn't actually bother to watch the video or you have no comment on it.  Don't you feel the Early Church Fathers in it have anything important to say, that you think worth commenting on?'

Not really.....the "early church fathers" were honorable men, but were not inspired;  most hermenutically not sound in exposition.  The "Early Church Fathers" did not write commentaries; they were apologists;  they were primarily concerned with problems and issues in the Church. They used their speculative theories as the starting point. They used paraphrased more than direct citation and quotation. They often appealed to apocryphal literature, and often leaned toward allegorism. and neglected the order and context of passages........ Have you studied the Hermeneutical principle of the Alexandrian School?

Sorry, I do not go into "viedos." I had my computer hard drive wiped out by a virus for doing just that...so please, forgive me for not watching...... 

Yeah, the early Church Fathers were just out there on there own, no help from God. Just stumbling around in the dark, hitting their shins on coffee tables. Luckily, after about 1500 years God showed favor on one man, Martin Luther, and the truth was finally able to be told. Of course, that Church that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against was finally born. Or maybe it wasn't born until Zwingli came along, heck, maybe it took Ellen White, or Pat Robertson, or John Hagee, before the truth was finally revealed. I don't know, all I know is those early Church fathers that lived at the same time as the apostles or in the generation or two following them, surely had no clue what they were doing.

Quote from: pointmadeNot really.....the "early church fathers" were honorable men, but were not inspired;

Let's see, and who decided what writing was to be considered "inspired", i.e., canonical?   That would be the...Early Church Fathers.   And when the church made those decisions of what texts was inspired and what was not, they did not have the opinion you do.  The Letter of Clement of Rome for example, was considered by many Christians to be part of the canon of the NT until the church decreed it not to be, but that does not mean that what HH Clement had to say was not orthodoxy and worth reading.    I'm afraid that I have to agree with another poster who feels that most objections non-Catholics have to the ECF's are based on the fact that the Church the ECF's describe in their writings is....decidedly Catholic, with a capitol "C".

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 14:00:03

Quote from: pointmadeNot really.....the "early church fathers" were honorable men, but were not inspired;

Let's see, and who decided what writing was to be considered "inspired", i.e., canonical?   That would be the...Early Church Fathers.   And when the church made those decisions of what texts was inspired and what was not, they did not have the opinion you do.  The Letter of Clement of Rome for example, was considered by many Christians to be part of the canon of the NT until the church decreed it not to be, but that does not mean that what HH Clement had to say was not orthodoxy and worth reading.    I'm afraid that I have to agree with another poster who feels that most objections non-Catholics have to the ECF's are based on the fact that the Church the ECF's describe in their writings is....decidedly Catholic, with a capitol "C".

Protestants have a black and white attitude to inspiration. The authors of scripture were "inspired" and what they wrote 100% literally correct (except when it comes to the Eucharist). The Holy Spirit inspires no-one else (except them personally of course).

Romans 10:17..."Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

For the multitudes who believes that His word is a "dead letter" and follow the "tradition" I will quote: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. Therefore, the question must be asked, "How then shall they "CALL' upon him whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe on him they have not HEARD?" and how shall they believe without a PREACHER?"

God reaches men today in the same way He has always reached them. By the preaching of the Word.....Do all men preach "His Word"?....NO! Therefore, "tradition" enters man's thought process.

When the rational, objective discernment of God's Word is distorted by man's tradition of "think so," we have the belief in "errantcy of Scripture."
Those who believe that God does not have the forbearance to perserve His spoken word, through the written word (by inspired writers) must rely on the "teachings of men," Therefore, we find the "revelatory church" with the Papacy and tolerance. The city of God, Indulgences, Purgatory, infant baptism, etc.

It has been said, "the Reformation owed its being to the direct contact of the mind with Scriptures, and it resulted in the emancipation of the human mind from priestly and papal authority." Here, I must ask the question: In their struggle to loose their bonds from the Roman church have the Reformers strayed from "apostolic doctrine" and followed the "faith only" teachings of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Westley and a host of lessor lights?

"Now I beseech you brethren, by the name of Jesus Christ, that you all SPEAK the same thing, and that there be no DIVISION among you; but you be perfectly joined together in the same MIND and in the same judgment" (1 Cor, 1:10).  Is this the inspired word of God or the tradition of Paul? I believe this is the meaning of His juxtaposition in Matthew 25:31-33, "Judgment of the nations."

Dispensationally, and in practice did the kingdom of God fare better in the judgment of the churches under Protestantism than they did with Catholicism? Read a little of Revelation Chapters Two and Three concerning what Jesus finds wrong with five of the churches described. Thyatira was especially representative of Catholicism, as Sardis is Protestantism. Sardis is so dead that Jesus will come upon them as a thief and it continues its deterioration into the Laodicea condition unless those saints repent and fit into Smyrna or Philadelphia territory. Even from the beginning in Ephesus apathy set in and they left their preeminent love of putting Jesus first. Dare we ask what a candlestick removed from its place means? I will state categorically it is not sent to hell. If you study these judgments you will discover they cover rewards or loss of them.

My thoughts.

Quote from: pointmade on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 08:07:04

Romans 10:17..."Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

For the multitudes who believes that His word is a "dead letter" and follow the "tradition" I will quote: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. Therefore, the question must be asked, "How then shall they "CALL' upon him whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe on him they have not HEARD?" and how shall they believe without a PREACHER?"

God reaches men today in the same way He has always reached them. By the preaching of the Word.....Do all men preach "His Word"?....NO! Therefore, "tradition" enters man's thought process.

When the rational, objective discernment of God's Word is distorted by man's tradition of "think so," we have the belief in "errantcy of Scripture."
Those who believe that God does not have the forbearance to perserve His spoken word, through the written word (by inspired writers) must rely on the "teachings of men," Therefore, we find the "revelatory church" with the Papacy and tolerance. The city of God, Indulgences, Purgatory, infant baptism, etc.

It has been said, "the Reformation owed its being to the direct contact of the mind with Scriptures, and it resulted in the emancipation of the human mind from priestly and papal authority." Here, I must ask the question: In their struggle to loose their bonds from the Roman church have the Reformers strayed from "apostolic doctrine" and followed the "faith only" teachings of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Westley and a host of lessor lights?

"Now I beseech you brethren, by the name of Jesus Christ, that you all SPEAK the same thing, and that there be no DIVISION among you; but you be perfectly joined together in the same MIND and in the same judgment" (1 Cor, 1:10).  Is this the inspired word of God or the tradition of Paul? I believe this is the meaning of His juxtaposition in Matthew 25:31-33, "Judgment of the nations."

Verse 15 says "And how can people preach unless they are sent?

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 08:50:04

Quote from: pointmade on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 08:07:04

Romans 10:17..."Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

For the multitudes who believes that His word is a "dead letter" and follow the "tradition" I will quote: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. Therefore, the question must be asked, "How then shall they "CALL' upon him whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe on him they have not HEARD?" and how shall they believe without a PREACHER?"

God reaches men today in the same way He has always reached them. By the preaching of the Word.....Do all men preach "His Word"?....NO! Therefore, "tradition" enters man's thought process.

When the rational, objective discernment of God's Word is distorted by man's tradition of "think so," we have the belief in "errantcy of Scripture."
Those who believe that God does not have the forbearance to perserve His spoken word, through the written word (by inspired writers) must rely on the "teachings of men," Therefore, we find the "revelatory church" with the Papacy and tolerance. The city of God, Indulgences, Purgatory, infant baptism, etc.

It has been said, "the Reformation owed its being to the direct contact of the mind with Scriptures, and it resulted in the emancipation of the human mind from priestly and papal authority." Here, I must ask the question: In their struggle to loose their bonds from the Roman church have the Reformers strayed from "apostolic doctrine" and followed the "faith only" teachings of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Westley and a host of lessor lights?

"Now I beseech you brethren, by the name of Jesus Christ, that you all SPEAK the same thing, and that there be no DIVISION among you; but you be perfectly joined together in the same MIND and in the same judgment" (1 Cor, 1:10).  Is this the inspired word of God or the tradition of Paul? I believe this is the meaning of His juxtaposition in Matthew 25:31-33, "Judgment of the nations."

Verse 15 says "And how can people preach unless they are sent?

Quote from: pointmade on Sun Mar 21, 2010 - 07:59:36
"Why not?" Look at the Biblical proof......"And the disciples were first called Protestants in Antioch."  Nah, just kidding, "the disciples were first called Catholics in Antioch."

Dust off those old Bibles and see what the disciples were "first called in Antioch."..... Now turn to Isaiah and read verse 2 of chapter 62.

Now, what's wrong with that "new name" that came from "the mouth of the Lord"? Try it, you might like it...

They were first called Christians in Antioch. It was to mean like Christ. they were not called catholic. Catholic is a much abused term Roman Catholics like to use to justify the RCC. However there was no Roman catholic papacy when the term was first used. It is just a term that refers to all believers in 110 AD It still refers to all believers today. No Protestant or RC. 

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 11:59:13

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 08:50:04

Quote from: pointmade on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 08:07:04

Romans 10:17..."Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

For the multitudes who believes that His word is a "dead letter" and follow the "tradition" I will quote: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. Therefore, the question must be asked, "How then shall they "CALL' upon him whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe on him they have not HEARD?" and how shall they believe without a PREACHER?"

God reaches men today in the same way He has always reached them. By the preaching of the Word.....Do all men preach "His Word"?....NO! Therefore, "tradition" enters man's thought process.

When the rational, objective discernment of God's Word is distorted by man's tradition of "think so," we have the belief in "errantcy of Scripture."
Those who believe that God does not have the forbearance to perserve His spoken word, through the written word (by inspired writers) must rely on the "teachings of men," Therefore, we find the "revelatory church" with the Papacy and tolerance. The city of God, Indulgences, Purgatory, infant baptism, etc.

It has been said, "the Reformation owed its being to the direct contact of the mind with Scriptures, and it resulted in the emancipation of the human mind from priestly and papal authority." Here, I must ask the question: In their struggle to loose their bonds from the Roman church have the Reformers strayed from "apostolic doctrine" and followed the "faith only" teachings of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Westley and a host of lessor lights?

"Now I beseech you brethren, by the name of Jesus Christ, that you all SPEAK the same thing, and that there be no DIVISION among you; but you be perfectly joined together in the same MIND and in the same judgment" (1 Cor, 1:10).  Is this the inspired word of God or the tradition of Paul? I believe this is the meaning of His juxtaposition in Matthew 25:31-33, "Judgment of the nations."

Verse 15 says "And how can people preach unless they are sent?

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 12:28:04

However I'm away for the next 10 days so I'll leave it. 

Blessings

Did I hear the statement from McLees "Does prayer work or not?" 

Have a good trip brother in Jesus' name.

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 14:00:03

Quote from: pointmadeNot really.....the "early church fathers" were honorable men, but were not inspired;

Let's see, and who decided what writing was to be considered "inspired", i.e., canonical?   That would be the...Early Church Fathers.   And when the church made those decisions of what texts was inspired and what was not, they did not have the opinion you do.  The Letter of Clement of Rome for example, was considered by many Christians to be part of the canon of the NT until the church decreed it not to be, but that does not mean that what HH Clement had to say was not orthodoxy and worth reading.    I'm afraid that I have to agree with another poster who feels that most objections non-Catholics have to the ECF's are based on the fact that the Church the ECF's describe in their writings is....decidedly Catholic, with a capitol "C".

Well Im just gonna say upfront that I didnt watch the video. I was jut reading through the topic when I found this common misundrstanding and decided to throw in my two senses.

Jesus Christ Himself promised that God's Wprd would not fade until its purpose was fulfiiled. That was a promise directly from God.

The Early Catholic Church (I emphasize Catholic because the true early church didnt completely reorganize in Rome like the Catholics pretend. The Eastern Orthodox Chruch is just as old and was organized around the same time period) Back to Action. The Early Catholic Church fathers werent special in being the ones to canonise the scriptures. Due to the promise of the Father any peasant who mangaed to claw their way to power and influence wouldve chosen the same books because it was dictated by God's Will.

So dont throw brownies point at the Catholics just because they were in a position to cause a massive spread of falsehood and God wouldnt allow it.

Im not saying they would but if you want to validate the authority of the Church you'll have to do so without giving credit to man when it belongs to God.

Winsome: "I would ask you to backup your claim, from scripture, that you are commissioned to preach the word just because you think you are led by the Holy Spirit.

However I'm away for the next 10 days so I'll leave it.  

Blessings

Nope, I am not "led by the Holy Spirit" to preach." I am told in Acts 1:2 that the "apostles he had chosen were given commandments through the Holy Spirit." This does not happen today...No need, we have "the faith once delivered" (Jude 3). I am told in Scripture to "Study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). Peter has written: "Be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandments of US the apostles of the Lord and Savior." (22 Peter 3:2).

The only thing I know about Jesus Christ comes from the "eyewitness" who were with Him from "the beginning" (John 15:27). So, that leaves you, the pope and me out of the mix. Jesus has authorized ONLY one way to believe on Him and this is "through their word" (John 17:20).

You sir, as a "scholar," knows that Jesus authorized the eleven (Thomas was absent) on the "first day of the week" in John 20 to" remit and retain sin." He did this by His "breath."  You, the Pope, Benny Hinn or I have not be granted this authority......The only place we can find remittance of sin is through "their word." If you know of anyone who has received another plan of salvation then what Peter preached at Pentecost I will listen as long as he verifies this revelation by "sign and wonders" (Acts 2:38; 43). Of course, where the Scriptures are a "dead letter" we find  Scripture as a product of the RCC and subject to the interpretative authority of the church (tradition emerging from church fathers, councils, and popes).

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 12:28:04

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 11:59:13

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 08:50:04

Quote from: pointmade on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 08:07:04

Romans 10:17..."Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

For the multitudes who believes that His word is a "dead letter" and follow the "tradition" I will quote: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. Therefore, the question must be asked, "How then shall they "CALL' upon him whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe on him they have not HEARD?" and how shall they believe without a PREACHER?"

God reaches men today in the same way He has always reached them. By the preaching of the Word.....Do all men preach "His Word"?....NO! Therefore, "tradition" enters man's thought process.

When the rational, objective discernment of God's Word is distorted by man's tradition of "think so," we have the belief in "errantcy of Scripture."
Those who believe that God does not have the forbearance to perserve His spoken word, through the written word (by inspired writers) must rely on the "teachings of men," Therefore, we find the "revelatory church" with the Papacy and tolerance. The city of God, Indulgences, Purgatory, infant baptism, etc.

It has been said, "the Reformation owed its being to the direct contact of the mind with Scriptures, and it resulted in the emancipation of the human mind from priestly and papal authority." Here, I must ask the question: In their struggle to loose their bonds from the Roman church have the Reformers strayed from "apostolic doctrine" and followed the "faith only" teachings of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Westley and a host of lessor lights?

"Now I beseech you brethren, by the name of Jesus Christ, that you all SPEAK the same thing, and that there be no DIVISION among you; but you be perfectly joined together in the same MIND and in the same judgment" (1 Cor, 1:10).  Is this the inspired word of God or the tradition of Paul? I believe this is the meaning of His juxtaposition in Matthew 25:31-33, "Judgment of the nations."

Verse 15 says "And how can people preach unless they are sent?

Mr. Sense: "The apostles in their turn commissioned and sent others (for example Paul sent Timothy""
I agree, but, you and I have not been "sent" by the laying on of apostolic hands. Look at the men in Acts 6:5. These men were sent.
Now, look at their credentials....in verse 3: "of honest report, full of the Spirit (Acts 2:38), and wisdom, whom we (apostles) may appoint."

Philip was one who had been "sent," was he not? We next find this man in Samaria preaching "apostolic doctrine" (Acts 8:12).
Now, look at verse 14......(drink these words in slowly, men seem to strangle on this verse.) "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God (HOW? by apostolic preaching), they SENT unto them Peter and John." Why? the Word of God says, "so they might receive the Holy Spirit." We see this again in Acts 19 where Paul laid hands on "certain disciples in Ephesus." WHY? "to receive the Holy Spirit!" Look at what happened to these men after "the Holy Spirit came upon them." They "spoke with tongues, and prophesied."  Do you know of anyone like that today? Say "no" because you do not, nor do I. 


You go on to say: "Verse 15 says "And how can people preach unless they are sent?

Quote from: larry2 on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 12:49:00

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 12:28:04

However I'm away for the next 10 days so I'll leave it. 

Blessings

Did I hear the statement from McLees "Does prayer work or not?" 

Quote from: mclees8 on Sun Apr 04, 2010 - 07:59:55

Quote from: larry2 on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 12:49:00

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 12:28:04

However I'm away for the next 10 days so I'll leave it. 

Blessings

Did I hear the statement from McLees "Does prayer work or not?" 

It was just a joke being that you two were debating back and forth, I thought Winsome leaving for ten days would be a relief, and possibly an answer to prayer to you - Bad humor??

Quote from: larry2 on Sun Apr 04, 2010 - 08:05:57

Quote from: mclees8 on Sun Apr 04, 2010 - 07:59:55

Quote from: larry2 on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 12:49:00

Quote from: winsome on Sat Apr 03, 2010 - 12:28:04

However I'm away for the next 10 days so I'll leave it. 

Blessings

Did I hear the statement from McLees "Does prayer work or not?" 

It was just a joke being that you two were debating back and forth, I thought Winsome leaving for ten days would be a relief, and possibly an answer to prayer to you - Bad humor??

Well i pray that he is blessed while he is away. I pray that he Lord will help Him see things not so legalistically. God will use anyone who is willing to do his will.

God bless

I suspect that Winsome, and most of us who are Catholic, have been away because it has been Holy Week including the Triduum.   Holy Week and then the last three days from Holy Thursday to this evening have been a special period of worship and prayer. 

I hope you all had a great Easter and that it was an occasion to renew your baptismal bond in the faith of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

God Bless.

HE IS RISEN!

Quote from: pointmade on Sun Apr 04, 2010 - 06:22:54
Mr. Sense: "The apostles in their turn commissioned and sent others (for example Paul sent Timothy""
I agree, but, you and I have not been "sent" by the laying on of apostolic hands. Look at the men in Acts 6:5. These men were sent.
Now, look at their credentials....in verse 3: "of honest report, full of the Spirit (Acts 2:38), and wisdom, whom we (apostles) may appoint."

Philip was one who had been "sent," was he not? We next find this man in Samaria preaching "apostolic doctrine" (Acts 8:12).
Now, look at verse 14......(drink these words in slowly, men seem to strangle on this verse.) "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God (HOW? by apostolic preaching), they SENT unto them Peter and John." Why? the Word of God says, "so they might receive the Holy Spirit." We see this again in Acts 19 where Paul laid hands on "certain disciples in Ephesus." WHY? "to receive the Holy Spirit!" Look at what happened to these men after "the Holy Spirit came upon them." They "spoke with tongues, and prophesied."  Do you know of anyone like that today? Say "no" because you do not, nor do I. 


You go on to say: "Verse 15 says "And how can people preach unless they are sent?

 I am essentially new to Christian boards so I am not really sure what kinda point you are trying make here.........  .

Point is: You, nor I have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as do the Apostles. Why? because this manifestation of the Spirit was never promised to you, or me as were the "men given" to Him by the Father (John 17:6-19). You and I have the responsibility to "believe on Jesus "through THEIR word" (John 17:20). 

The only God that you and I can ever know comes clothed to us in apostolic doctrine (John 17:22;26).
Paul emphasises this in 2 Corinthians 3:6 that Christ made "US" (the apostles) "able administrators of the new testament." Paul goes on to call the new testament the "Spirit of life" in verse 6."
Please note verse 17: "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Without the "Spirit of the New Testament" you and I are "dead men walking." "Tradition of men and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's, but with God the rebuke of 1 Peter 1:13-25.

Quote from: pointmade on Tue Apr 06, 2010 - 08:12:02

I am essentially new to Christian boards so I am not really sure what kinda point you are trying make here.........  .

Point is: You, nor I have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as do the Apostles. Why? because this manifestation of the Spirit was never promised to you, or me as were the "men given" to Him by the Father (John 17:6-19). You and I have the responsibility to "believe on Jesus "through THEIR word" (John 17:20). 

The only God that you and I can ever know comes clothed to us in apostolic doctrine (John 17:22;26).
Paul emphasises this in 2 Corinthians 3:6 that Christ made "US" (the apostles) "able administrators of the new testament." Paul goes on to call the new testament the "Spirit of life" in verse 6."
Please note verse 17: "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Without the "Spirit of the New Testament" you and I are "dead men walking." "Tradition of men and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's, but with God the rebuke of 1 Peter 1:13-25.

Dear pointmade, I highlighted your above quote so I could address that point, but wouldn't you consider being filled with the Holy Spirit as being indwelt with Him?

Acts 1:15  And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Acts 2:1   And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. (The 120 disciples)

Acts 2:2  And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

Acts 2:3  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Acts 2:4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Quote from: pointmade on Tue Apr 06, 2010 - 08:12:02
I am essentially new to Christian boards so I am not really sure what kinda point you are trying make here.........  .

Point is: You, nor I have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as do the Apostles. Why? because this manifestation of the Spirit was never promised to you, or me as were the "men given" to Him by the Father (John 17:6-19). You and I have the responsibility to "believe on Jesus "through THEIR word" (John 17:20). 

The only God that you and I can ever know comes clothed to us in apostolic doctrine (John 17:22;26).
Paul emphasises this in 2 Corinthians 3:6 that Christ made "US" (the apostles) "able administrators of the new testament." Paul goes on to call the new testament the "Spirit of life" in verse 6."
Please note verse 17: "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Without the "Spirit of the New Testament" you and I are "dead men walking." "Tradition of men and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's, but with God the rebuke of 1 Peter 1:13-25.

Dear sir the Holy Spirit is for all of us who love Christ. You remember on the day of Pentecost  their were 120 in the upper room waiting for the promise of the Holy Spirit to come upon them. It was not just the apostles there. The Holy spirit came and sat upon all of them. You also recall that many received the Holy Spirit in the book of acts by the apostles. With out the Holy spirit you and I  can not live a life that pleases God. The promise was for all believers who desire Him.

Jesus said Himself you must be born again of the spirit. This was not some exclusive for  certain chosen apostles but it is for every believer. We must be empowered of the Holy Spirit to be bold witnesses for Christ both in word and deed.  Acts I:8

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 Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. he did not just say this to the apostles

It is power to live for Christ and to boldly Proclaim his Gospel even in the face of opposition and persecution. This is for all who us who Love Christ

Quote from: larry2 on Tue Apr 06, 2010 - 08:39:39

Quote from: pointmade on Tue Apr 06, 2010 - 08:12:02

I am essentially new to Christian boards so I am not really sure what kinda point you are trying make here.........  .

Point is: You, nor I have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as do the Apostles. Why? because this manifestation of the Spirit was never promised to you, or me as were the "men given" to Him by the Father (John 17:6-19). You and I have the responsibility to "believe on Jesus "through THEIR word" (John 17:20). 

The only God that you and I can ever know comes clothed to us in apostolic doctrine (John 17:22;26).
Paul emphasises this in 2 Corinthians 3:6 that Christ made "US" (the apostles) "able administrators of the new testament." Paul goes on to call the new testament the "Spirit of life" in verse 6."
Please note verse 17: "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Without the "Spirit of the New Testament" you and I are "dead men walking." "Tradition of men and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's, but with God the rebuke of 1 Peter 1:13-25.

Dear pointmade, I highlighted your above quote so I could address that point, but wouldn't you consider being filled with the Holy Spirit as being indwelt with Him?

Acts 1:15  And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Acts 2:1   And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. (The 120 disciples)

Acts 2:2  And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

Acts 2:3  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Acts 2:4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Sorry Larry but we both Posted at the same time. Just so that he knows i was not copying you. It is just a double exclamation point from the Lord

Quote from: larry2 on Tue Apr 06, 2010 - 08:39:39

Quote from: pointmade on Tue Apr 06, 2010 - 08:12:02

I am essentially new to Christian boards so I am not really sure what kinda point you are trying make here.........  .

Point is: You, nor I have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as do the Apostles. Why? because this manifestation of the Spirit was never promised to you, or me as were the "men given" to Him by the Father (John 17:6-19). You and I have the responsibility to "believe on Jesus "through THEIR word" (John 17:20).  

The only God that you and I can ever know comes clothed to us in apostolic doctrine (John 17:22;26).
Paul emphasises this in 2 Corinthians 3:6 that Christ made "US" (the apostles) "able administrators of the new testament." Paul goes on to call the new testament the "Spirit of life" in verse 6."
Please note verse 17: "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Without the "Spirit of the New Testament" you and I are "dead men walking." "Tradition of men and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's, but with God the rebuke of 1 Peter 1:13-25.

Dear pointmade, I highlighted your above quote so I could address that point, but wouldn't you consider being filled with the Holy Spirit as being indwelt with Him?

I am not pointmade but the answer to your question is No.  The events of Acts 2:4 (and Acts 10:44 BTW) which you referenced were quite similar to the events of Numbers 11:25.  Neither event entailed the indwelling Holy Spirit and neither event entailed the salvation of those involved.

But for what it is worth, I disagree with pointmade also.  We indeed have the indwelling Holy Spirit just as the apostles did and as do all who have received salvation.  We just have not received the filling that would enable us to work miracles as some did and to pass along that ability as only the apostles did.

Larry & mclees8   

Jimmy:But for what it is worth, I disagree with pointmade also.  We indeed have the indwelling Holy Spirit just as the apostles did and as do all who have received salvation.  We just have not received the filling that would enable us to work miracles as some did and to pass along that ability as only the apostles did "

What kind of an answer is this? "We indeed have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the apostles We just have not received the filling that would enable us to work miracles."   Well Jimmy.....as I said, this "indwelling was only promised to the men in the upper room." You, Larry, Frank, Mclees8 were not there! Nor were the one hundred and twenty mentioned in Acts 1:15. There is absolutely nothing in the text of Acts 2 that implies that the 120 were filled with the Holy Spirit.
In verse 8, Luke informs the reader: "And how do we hear EVERY MAN in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" Wouldn't the women in verse 14 be speaking in tongues if the Spirit fell on the 120? Luke tells us that "Peter stood up with the eleven" (apostles) in verse 14. So, let's keep our facts straight when we exegeses the text.

Jimmy, You say, "the filling was to work miracles." Absurd!  You are aware that the "twelve" had been working miracles since early in Jesus' ministry BEFORE the Spirit had been given (John 7:39)? You might look to Matthew 10:1 where Jesus "called the twelve and gave them power" for verification. You say,  "We indeed have the same indwelling Holy Spirit just as the apostles." OK....try this.....In the upper room the night Jesus was betrayed, He told the eleven men seated there with him: "whatsoever YOU shall ask in my name I will do it" (John 14:14). Would either of you "indwelled" gentlemen like to try this? I will wait for your reply.......

"Indwelled'? why neither of you could elementry comply with Jesus' words in the upper room: "But when the Advocate, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall TEACH YOU ALL THINGS AND BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMBERMANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU" (John 14:26). Please excuse my emphasizes by capitalization....but, please do not insult my intelligence by saying you have this total recall given to men who had been with him from the beginning (John 15:27). Nope, wasn't promised to you, the papacy or Benny Hinn...lol...lol

Quote from: pointmade on Mon Apr 12, 2010 - 10:50:19
Jimmy:But for what it is worth, I disagree with pointmade also.  We indeed have the indwelling Holy Spirit just as the apostles did and as do all who have received salvation.  We just have not received the filling that would enable us to work miracles as some did and to pass along that ability as only the apostles did "

What kind of an answer is this? "We indeed have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the apostles We just have not received the filling that would enable us to work miracles."   Well Jimmy.....as I said, this "indwelling was only promised to the men in the upper room." You, Larry, Frank, Mclees8 were not there! Nor were the one hundred and twenty mentioned in Acts 1:15. There is absolutely nothing in the text of Acts 2 that implies that the 120 were filled with the Holy Spirit.
In verse 8, Luke informs the reader: "And how do we hear EVERY MAN in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" Wouldn't the women in verse 14 be speaking in tongues if the Spirit fell on the 120? Luke tells us that "Peter stood up with the eleven" (apostles) in verse 14. So, let's keep our facts straight when we exegeses the text.

Jimmy, You say, "the filling was to work miracles." Absurd!  You are aware that the "twelve" had been working miracles since early in Jesus' ministry BEFORE the Spirit had been given (John 7:39)? You might look to Matthew 10:1 where Jesus "called the twelve and gave them power" for verification. You say,  "We indeed have the same indwelling Holy Spirit just as the apostles." OK....try this.....In the upper room the night Jesus was betrayed, He told the eleven men seated there with him: "whatsoever YOU shall ask in my name I will do it" (John 14:14). Would either of you "indwelled" gentlemen like to try this? I will wait for your reply.......

"Indwelled'? why neither of you could elementry comply with Jesus' words in the upper room: "But when the Advocate, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall TEACH YOU ALL THINGS AND BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMBERMANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU" (John 14:26). Please excuse my emphasizes by capitalization....but, please do not insult my intelligence by saying you have this total recall given to men who had been with him from the beginning (John 15:27). Nope, wasn't promised to you, the papacy or Benny Hinn...lol...lol

And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,
. Ac 1:13-15

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
  Acts 2:1-4


well you might call it poor exegeses. But its looks purty plain to me. it says there were 120 in the upper room and it says they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. It did not say that the 12 were filled but it said all were filled.

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offerc him a scorpion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Lk 11:11-13

Now if 120 were there waiting for the promise would the Lord deny the others

Now who do you think brought this scripture to me ?

God bless

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 12, 2010 - 13:25:13

Quote from: pointmade on Mon Apr 12, 2010 - 10:50:19
Jimmy:But for what it is worth, I disagree with pointmade also.  We indeed have the indwelling Holy Spirit just as the apostles did and as do all who have received salvation.  We just have not received the filling that would enable us to work miracles as some did and to pass along that ability as only the apostles did "

What kind of an answer is this? "We indeed have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the apostles We just have not received the filling that would enable us to work miracles."   Well Jimmy.....as I said, this "indwelling was only promised to the men in the upper room." You, Larry, Frank, Mclees8 were not there! Nor were the one hundred and twenty mentioned in Acts 1:15. There is absolutely nothing in the text of Acts 2 that implies that the 120 were filled with the Holy Spirit.
In verse 8, Luke informs the reader: "And how do we hear EVERY MAN in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" Wouldn't the women in verse 14 be speaking in tongues if the Spirit fell on the 120? Luke tells us that "Peter stood up with the eleven" (apostles) in verse 14. So, let's keep our facts straight when we exegeses the text.

Jimmy, You say, "the filling was to work miracles." Absurd!  You are aware that the "twelve" had been working miracles since early in Jesus' ministry BEFORE the Spirit had been given (John 7:39)? You might look to Matthew 10:1 where Jesus "called the twelve and gave them power" for verification. You say,  "We indeed have the same indwelling Holy Spirit just as the apostles." OK....try this.....In the upper room the night Jesus was betrayed, He told the eleven men seated there with him: "whatsoever YOU shall ask in my name I will do it" (John 14:14). Would either of you "indwelled" gentlemen like to try this? I will wait for your reply.......

"Indwelled'? why neither of you could elementry comply with Jesus' words in the upper room: "But when the Advocate, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall TEACH YOU ALL THINGS AND BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMBERMANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU" (John 14:26). Please excuse my emphasizes by capitalization....but, please do not insult my intelligence by saying you have this total recall given to men who had been with him from the beginning (John 15:27). Nope, wasn't promised to you, the papacy or Benny Hinn...lol...lol

And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,
. Ac 1:13-15

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
  Acts 2:1-4


well you might call it poor exegeses. But its looks purty plain to me. it says there were 120 in the upper room and it says they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. It did not say that the 12 were filled but it said all were filled.

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offerc him a scorpion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Lk 11:11-13

Now if 120 were there waiting for the promise would the Lord deny the others

Now who do you think brought this scripture to me ?

God bless

The scripture was brought to you by the Catholic Church. They are the ones that canonized the Bible and compiled the scriptures into the book that we now know as the New Testament.

So, on behalf of the Catholic Church, you are welcome.

But that which they recalled did they keep to themselves or did they deliver it into the community of Christians who were obedient to the Authority of the Apostles and the Elders who were led by the Holy Spirit?

If so what makes us so cynical against the authority of oral tradition as the vehicle through which these traditions were delivered?  What makes us cut off all oral proclamation of that which was deposited into The Church and leave only the letters written to The Church as authoritative?  

We argue semantics using our modern notions and subject the reality of the Holy Spirit's work within the body of these good Christians of our past for the sake of what we call "reason".  We distrust that the community of Christians that were taught and retained the traditions transmitted by the Apostles were indeed kept.  We look on this ancient group of Christians as failures and believe that we must start over where they left off.  And we believe that where those early Christians left off is where the letters of the books of the bible leave off.  

Did Christ not establish outside of the pages that which can not be brought down?  Did Christ not build through his Church that which will stand the fire let alone culture and time?  


Hebrews 5:

11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.


Here we read that what they had learned was already in place prior to the scriptures.  It is a cynics leap to make that which is in place invalid when the scriptures themselves are written as if those things are already in place.  Did this letter then go on to teach that which needed to be taught all over again?  No.  Why?   There is no need.  They are able to learn that which they were taught all over again because they were taught it by word of mouth in the first place.  And so do you think that the elders and overseers after receiving this letter didn't address the issue addressed in this letter?  No.  They must have taught them all over again because anything less would be disobedient and to be an elder or overseer who received this letter action is required.  

But look to see what follows and you see here where the traditions of protestant approach and authority falls apart.  

Hebrews 6

1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.  


Dare to look out at the denominations and the contradictory teachings regarding that which is called elementary here.  

1.  The foundation of repentance

You well know that each denomination has contradictory views on what this foundation is.  You know well if you look out the window that those who gather across the street and preach from the authority of the bible have a different interpretation on what this foundation is.  More than this you are well aware that even within your own denominations the foundation of repentance is debated.  

2.  Instruction about baptisms

Ask the Methodists and the Baptists who is right concerning the instruction of baptisms.  The will both preach their stance from the authority of the scriptures and yet will be blind to the reality that it is their interpretation that they hold up as authoritative.  Otherwise one or the other or both would not exist independent from one another.  People will shrug this off and say that these are petty differences and that they generally agree but look even further out wherein you have even more variation and you will see an ocean of opinion and yet each grain of salt will stand firm in their belief that their interpretation is synonymous with the Word of God simply because they have scripture to back up their stance.  

There are PHDs who write books on what they believe the "true" instruction about baptisms is about and even they disagree.  We have the people who are convinced that the reason they believe as they do is because the Holy Spirit Himself has told them, whispering in their ear the correct interpretation.  However, the person who believes something contradictory is just as convinced because the Holy Spirit has also whispered such a thing in their ear.  

3.  The laying on of hands

Ask the pentecostals about the elementary teaching and then ask the baptists or the Wesleyans or the Lutherans and on and on it goes and again we can not reach agreement.  I dare the divisions to "tell it to the Church" as Christ said in Matthew 18 but again each group will only retreat to their interpretation and gather themselves to those of like minds.  The Lutherans will gather under the Lutheran banner and so believe that they will have "told it to The Church" and the pentecostals will divide the words in the scriptures with their pentecostal scalpels and  so retreat to their gathering and hold their banners high as if God Himself has established two contradictory teachings.  

Again, out of self preservation each then says that this does not matter and they begin to prioritize teachings based on what they believe "salvation" issues are.  The less dangerous a thing to a man's salvation the lower on the list it goes and since faith is the only thing many can put confidence in they make these elementary teachings subjective and embrace their pluralistic and indifferent attitudes.  Otherwise they would have to admit that there is a Church somewhere that Christ established that doesn't view itself as subject to interpretation or an individual.  

4.  The resurrection of the dead

There is an Anglican bishop in good standing who believes that the resurrection was just a metaphor.  Other groups teach in a disembodied "resurrection" and others still that this is merely an eschatological issue and so make their dispensations and end times a focal point.   Pre-trib rapture, mid-trib rapture, post-trib rapture don't even agree within their own groups and we have different flavors of teachings all across the board and every single one uses the scriptures as a child uses legos to construct different buildings.  

Then you have the people who say that in order to harvest true meaning and understanding out of the scriptures which in their mind leads to right interpretation you must approach the scriptures like this or like that or take into account everything and anything other than the fact that there just might be a Church that Christ Himself established and that the scriptures are only understood within the context of that church.  

We are all the one true church is the modern chant but then this means that Benny Hinn is just as right as Wesley and Wesley is just as right as Zwingli and Calvin and Luther and yes even those off shoots like the Oneness movement and the emergent Church and add in Universalists and every single group that can pick up the bible and glean it for the authority they bestow upon the self.  

Christ is risen and yet the bible has become a mere means to divide his garments.  

5. Eternal Judgment

Peruse these boards and you see people creating laws out of opinions and treating laws as if they are opinion and yet how can we blame them.  Each bible is only as good as its reader and each reader so inadequate within their own person.  

Again I hear people believing that they have been given a spirit of discernment or that one has better reasoning and logic but again I must point to The Church Christ spoke of that we are to "tell it to".  That Church which has authority.  It's not an institution of man or merely a puppet house for the power hungry because if this were so then the gates of death truly would prevail over The Church.  

One thing we miss when we attempt to justify our opinions is that these are not mere "elementary teachings" but vital that we understand that when we approach such doctrines and teachings that these are the very teaching OF CHRIST.  Read Hebrews 5-6 and you see the words here yourselves that they are THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST

So we say that it's about laying on of hands but in all reality they are teachings of Christ and yet we have many groups and individuals within those groups contradicting each other in regards to the teachings of Christ.  How can the scriptures make sense when Paul says that if any teaches you "another Jesus" or any other "good news" than the one they transmitted if all we have done is made an art of contradicting one another.  

Why is it we don't attempt to seek total agreement or attain to the unity of the faith but instead man the posts that we've pitched on the wastelands of our opinions?  

That God works in our life and is long suffering and loving to each and all is without doubt but in regards to our maturity it is vital that we stop seeking to justify our position but to find this Church of which HAS the authority to face these questions and declare them true or false.  

If The Church is the pillar and foundation or ground of Truth then we are not even standing on this ground when we take the scriptures which are only understood within the context of The Church and subject The Church and The Truth to the Individual and his Opinion and answer that their authority to do this is for the simple fact that they can read.  


Where in the scriptures does the scriptures say of itself, "the scriptures feed the sheep" or "the scriptures are the pillar and foundation of truth" or "the scriptures and your opinion of what the scriptures mean to say is synonymous with the very Word of God, the divine Logos! Himself!"?   By the very tenants of sola scriptura, you can not even gather sola scriptura as scriptural because the scriptures themselves point to Christ's Authority through the Apostles who delivered the faith into THE! CHURCH (which IS the deposit of the faith) which the tenants of sola scriptura deny.    




Holy Apostles



Christ is risen

ICXC