Justification

[Briguy]

Grant, Having read the verses in John carefully I see that my answer in Romans fits here too, at least to a basic degree. Jesus is talking very intimate with his closest friends, his 12 disciples. He is opening up to them and giving them His main ministry message, that is to LOVE ONE ANOTHER. Now, from the chapter before we see as the chapter changes to #15 Jesus extends what he is saying to all people. We start this life as a branch on the vine of Christ (in this example from Jesus), if we believe in Him we will not be cut off, if we do not believe, then he abides not in us and we are cast off and burned like a branch. One side note. In the KJV it does not say the branches is cut off and thrown into the fire, it says like a branch thrown into the fire. As I wrote that I realized I have no clue if that helps or hurts my argument or if it means anything at all – oh well. Jesus was very direct at times in who he was speaking to and very general at other times. The “you” when he says “I am the vine, you are the branches” is an audience “you”, where a lot of chapt 14, 15, etc… is meant only for the 12, who would become apostles (minus Judas, of course). Grant, in this intimate conversation, with various focuses, I do not believe we are meant to get strict doctrine statements but are supposed to get the idea of how much Jesus loves us, to the point of actually abiding in us, and how important it is for the one with whom Christ abides that we do good for His sake. The world sees the branches that remain on the vine and thus it is crucial for the kingdom that we live as we ought, by following the BIG COMMANDMENT, TO LOVE OTHERS.

Grant, I don’t know if you will accept that but I believe that is thought that Jesus was conveying to us and His beloved 12.


Thanks to Cure and Adam on the compliment on my SW record. Actually I will have been in the field for 19 years come 2/05. It certainly has been a challenge and a blessing. To me Cure is the real hero as he in the very front line of SW, and getting the process started for many people in need. BTW, I sit next to a guy who has been in SW for 36 years and he is still sane! I don’t know if I will endure that long, time will tell.

More to come,
In Christ,
Brian

[thessalonian]

Brian,

Can one who does not believe be called God's trusted friend?

Blessings

[point5]

I second mulls..props to everyone for this dialouge. I enjoy seeing charity...and hearing both sides presented logically. I hope this stays active for a while.

[Briguy]

Hi Adam, I am responding now to your thought on unity. I agree fully that the Catholic Church has great unity. Much more so then protestants. That is why, btw, I hate the use of church titles and denominations. I attend a non-denominational church called, Racine Bible Church. It is a church that just concentrates on teaching the word of God. Sunday messages are basically a dissection of scripture with lots of cross references and then practical application. Anyway, back to the point. The Catholic Church is very unified but so are the worldwide Mormons and also the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Having everyone on the same page does not mean that they are on the right page. We must test what we believe as much as we can, and for me that test starts and ends with the Bible. For you it incorporates the Bible but includes tradition and Vatican leadership. Now, you said that the authority on doctrinal matters has been “passed down” from the Apostles to church leaders down through the ages. I say that the doctrinal authority has been “written down” by the Apostles for the ages. Peter, James, John etc… wrote the things they deemed important for us to always have. The Bible contains all we need to know about God and gives us the resources to actually get to know God. Knowing God, through Jesus, is all we really need to know when it comes down to it. Paul said , in more then one place, that any Gospel that is preached that is different then the one he preached is no gospel at all. That right there is the only criteria we have for teaching Jesus, that is it has to line up with what Paul said. The unity in the churches comes from teaching Paul’s Jesus, everything else, though it can cause strife and problems, does not divide. Paul and Barnabas (maybe it was Silas) split and went different ways over an issue but both were fully committed to Christ and forwarding the same gospel, even when they did not get along so well with each other. I believe it is the same today. If we preach Paul’s Christ we have unity.

Thess., On the Romans 11:22 question. Below I included the verse and others in KJV and NASB. I can only say that I stand by what I said. This is a figurative thing Jesus is saying and he is saying it to the “Jews” as a whole and the “Gentiles” as a whole because the gentiles for the first time could fully be accepted as God’s chosen, by their belief. This is saying that there is goodness for the believers and a severe wrath for unbelievers. Whether Jew or Gentile the judgement is now by faith (belief), not by obedience, as in the way of the Law. The whole world now has potential access to God in all His goodness, not just the Jews and their priests, etc…

Thess. The trusted friend question. Is this in regard to whether Judas was saved or not? Remember the quote is an OT quote that was being used to display a certain thought. I’ll answer to Judas if that is what you were getting at, but after I hear back from you.

Thanks for the great questions and posts. I am enjoying the challenge and the On-Line fellowship!

In Christ,
Brian

KJV
17] And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
[18] Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
[19] Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
[20] Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
[21] For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
[22] Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
[23] And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
[24] For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
[26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

NASB
17 But if some of the (28) branches were broken off, and (29) you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that (30) it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19 (31) You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you (32) stand by your faith. (33) Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's (34) kindness, (35) if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also (36) will be cut off.
23 And they also, (37) if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For (38) I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this (39) mystery--so that you will not be (40) wise in your own estimation--that a partial (41) hardening has happened to Israel until the (42) fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

[thessalonian]

"Thess., On the Romans 11:22 question. Below I included the verse and others in KJV and NASB. I can only say that I stand by what I said. This is a figurative thing Jesus is saying and he is saying it to the “Jews” as a whole and the “Gentiles” as a whole because the gentiles for the first time could fully be accepted as God’s chosen, by their belief. This is saying that there is goodness for the believers and a severe wrath for unbelievers. Whether Jew or Gentile the judgement is now by faith (belief), not by obedience, as in the way of the Law. The whole world now has potential access to God in all His goodness, not just the Jews and their priests, etc…"

So all of the gentiles may someday be cut off? Or maybe they already have been? If all of them are cut off then what of the ones who were true believers and saved? Did they loose there salvation? I am not following your explanation very well I guess. The gentiles in Romans 11 are apparently grafted on gentiles by faith but it seems you are saying they are grafted on but not really grafted on because they never really believed. Now the Jews formed branches by birth and the law. But he says the gentiles are grafted on by faith. Now how can anyone be cut off who has not been grafted on in the first place? Yet it says that they may be cut off. Whether you read it as the whole of the gentiles or some of them or individually it reads the same to me. Am I just confused about what you are saying? I do agree that they will be cut off by unbelief. But where are you getting in the verse that they were never grafted on in the first place. He says they were grafted on by faith. That is the only way a gentile can be grafted on.

"Thess. The trusted friend question. Is this in regard to whether Judas was saved or not? Remember the quote is an OT quote that was being used to display a certain thought. I’ll answer to Judas if that is what you were getting at, but after I hear back from you."

Shouldn't matter. Either someone who is not a true-believer can or can not be God's trusted friend. If they can be in what way can they be such that they are not saved? Sorry if I am not much help. Looking forward to your reply.

Blessings

Edited October 26, 2004 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

Brian,

I have to say that the following is not a very good arguement.

"Paul and Barnabas (maybe it was Silas) split and went different ways over an issue but both were fully committed to Christ and forwarding the same gospel, even when they did not get along so well with each other. I believe it is the same today. If we preach Paul’s Christ we have unity."

Paul and Barnabas disagreement was not over a doctrinal matter but over whether Mark should come along with them back to where they had already preached.

Acts 15:36-37
After some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are."
Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.
But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.


You will have to come up with an example in the Bible of where there was a doctrinal difference based on an interprutation of the scriptures for your theory to hold water I am afraid. Do you have one? Where does Paul say, the correct interprutation of these verses really doesn't matter? I am arguing this same point on another board and it seems the arguement is "the bible contains everything that is neccessary for our salvation, yet none of it really matters as long as you have Jesus.". You guys can't even agree on what the Gospel is. I listen to Protestant radio and one guy says that 90% of the Evangelical Christians aren't really saved because they didn't have the law preached to them first. He says that 60-80% go back to the billy graham crusades several times to get resaved because they aren't getting saved right in the first place. Yet others on that same station say, you say a sinners prayer and your in. Even if you sin big and bad your in. Now these have to be significant differences don't you agree? Some say you have to speak in tongues or you were never really saved. Just a little in house debate you say? No Brian, we need to have the fullness of the truth. All of God's holy word matters and we are accountable for proper dilligence in determining what the truth is. But in order for God to be able to hold us accountable he must have left a means of knowing where to find the fullness of the truth. I cannot see how it can be anywhere but in the Catholic Church. God made this derterination easy early on but man made it difficult with his rebellion during the reformation such that 95% of the division has it's roots in the reformation. I had one pastor tell me that the division was a part of God's plan to keep the truth from satan. Very strange.

Blessings

Edited October 26, 2004 by thessalonian

[Brother Adam]

Hi Brain,

Let's get right into it.

[quote]Sunday messages are basically a dissection of scripture with lots of cross references and then practical application[/quote]

Yes, I got used to this method of Church for three years in a fundamental Church. Certianly it is not a "wrong" way to learn about God, but in the years I spent visiting and then as a member of these Churches, it never once was "deep". That is the best way I know how to describe it. The scriptures never came together harmoniously the way they do in the Church. The pastor typically decided something he wanted to talk about. Tear a few verses apart talking about the Greek and on rare occassion the culture in which the verse was taken. They then usually refer to a few other verses which they believed would help make their point. Worship was always more about feeling close to God and less about true intimacy with God. Also, anyone in the fundamentalist churches were free to believe whatever they will and come up with whole different ideas about the verses preached.

Worship in the Catholic Church has always, as it was in biblical times, been structured around the Word and the Sacraments. There are two main parts to the mass: the reading of the Word of God and the breaking of bread. Fellowship is emphasised outside of worship, as worship is time between man and God. However, there is the greeting of peace, when we greet our brothers and sisters in Christ. Between the two, I have to pick the method of worship which has been going on for 2000 years. Every Sunday a reading is choosen from the OT or Revelation, Psalms, New Testament Epistles, and then the Gospel reading. No matter what Church you are in across the world, the same readings are used. The same message is preached. And through three years almost the whole Bible is read aloud in Church. The sermon is based on bringing together these readings and focusing on an aspect such as Prayer, Salvation, Repentance, or even social issues in our lives today. I suggest "The Lamb's Supper" for an increadible look into the worship of the Bible. Completely biblical support

[quote]The Catholic Church is very unified but so are the worldwide Mormons and also the Jehovah’s Witnesses.[/quote]

Often less so than you think. I'm not as well versed in the JW faith, but have read the Book of Mormon and studied the Mormon faith in depth. I was part of a couple of debates on teh BB with Mormons. One thing I do know about both: As with Protestantism, they have very late origins in Christianity, and are sects that, unlike Protestantism are in apostasy as well as heresy. They aren't even Christian. Unity, on some fronts, but by the same idea, there is unity among Southern Baptists, no matter where in the world they are located.

[quote]We must test what we believe as much as we can, and for me that test starts and ends with the Bible. For you it incorporates the Bible but includes tradition and Vatican leadership.[/quote]

This is somewhat incorrect, but I understand where you are coming from. This was something else I had to look into pretty deep. Just as you look to commentaries, we look at the Early Church Fathers. And yes, we have commentaries too. Increadibly profound ones. I suggest looking at some of them. You'll often find Catholics and Protestants agree, and where we don't, Catholics often just are looking at things from a different, many times, better, angle.

The Bible and Tradition and the Church all have unique places in Christianity. And their places are not the same in Christianity. The Church came first (more correctly, the Jewish people came first, then the Torah, the Old Testament, then the Church, then the New Testament). The Church choose the canon of the Bible. Much more was written than is in the Bible in early times. We look to these sources not necessarily as inspired, but not necessarily useless either. We hold to Traditions as the apostles held to Traditions. The Gospel was shared only by word of mouth for the first 400 years of Christianity. Lest we forget.

There is much more to talk about but I'm running out of time.

[quote]We must test what we believe as much as we can, and for me that test starts and ends with the Bible[/quote]

The Bible never says it is sufficient as a rule of faith. It tells us we are left with the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. Luther was sorely wrong on this point. He came to it after getting frustrated because of poor leaders in the Church who were refusing to reform their questionable practices. It was his "escape" to justify his attacks on the Church. His 95 thesis were based solely on a practice in the Church, not on doctrine or morals. Naturally, he later dissented in other ways. St. Therese and St. John of the Cross both fought against bad practices, but did not divorce the family of God as Luther did. Everyone would do well to read their stories, protestant and Catholic.

[quote]Gospel that is preached that is different then the one he preached is no gospel at all.[/quote]

Absolutely. Which is why it is disappointing so many Protestant Churches do. Faith alone is unteniable. Scripture never once teaches it. Faith. But never faith alone. Scripture must be approached as a whole, or it can be made to say anything as Zwingli has proved in his "symbolic communion and symbolic baptism" teachings.

God Bless!

Bro. Adam

[thessalonian]

Couple more questions Brian.

In light of the following scriptures how much error did Paul find or expect to find when he checked in on the local communities:

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, JUST as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

If one has a scripture but has an errant view of it, does he have the word of God?

1 Peter 2:1
Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,
like newborn babies, long for the PURE milk of the word, so that BY IT (that is the PURE milk of the word) you may grow in respect to salvation,

James 1:27
PURE and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

(where is faith alone)


How many mistaken theological conclusions did he allow for Timothy:

1 Corinthians 4:17
For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, JUST as I teach everywhere in every church.

2 Timothy 2:15
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

Just a little FFT.



Blessings

Thessalonian

Edited October 27, 2004 by thessalonian

[Briguy]

Hi Thess. and Adam, hope this day finds you well!!

Thess. Romans 11 - Here I thought you had it but now it seems you missed my point. The grafting in is one of position for the Gentiles. By position, the Jews, chosen AS A PEOPLE, were the natural branches on the tree. Because of the death and ressurrection of Christ, Gentiles have been grafted onto the tree, positionally. This is not meant to be so deep. We now are all God's chosen people, us Gentiles have joined Isreal in this respect. What individual people do is something altogether different. I will leave it at that because, with my poor brain power the more I try to explain something the more foggy it gets. Thess. in terms of being in His kindness, remember, it is by position here and so we have a position of Kindness as a whole.

On Paul and Barnabas - I was trying to make a point but did not make a very good one. I guess what I was eluding to was that the only clear criteria we have for judging anothers "belief system" (for lack of better words) is to judge what Gospel they are preaching. Paul tells us that if anyone preaches a Jesus, other then the one he preached (what he preached about Jesus), they are wrong. By this judgement I can declare that JW's are wrong. Paul did not say Christ was an angel, therefore that is a different Jesus, and JW's are in error. Mormons say God was a man on a different planet in the past. This defies God being the one power in the whole universe and takes Jesus from the high place that paul has put Him and so I can declare that Mormons are wrong by Paul's standard. I cannot declare that Catholics are wrong by Paul's measure and so I won't. Catholics on the other hand will declare me to be wrong about Jesus (and His true Church) even though I preach (no, I am not a preacher) but when I speak of Jesus, as I taught JV AWANA last year and share with people when I can, I bring Paul's Jesus. I guess my question would be by what Biblical criteria are you judging other chuches? So, what I am getting at is that we make things into "doctrine" that we probably shouldn't because we were never allowed biblically to do so. The divisions in the "body" today are because of manmade doctrine more then anything.

Have to go, I will address tradition later. (Biblical tradition does not
involve big hats, I will start with that) - no disrespect intended, just a little humor.

Lots of other great questions you have asked. I will try to get to them all. If you can restrain yourselves, hold off on new questions until I catch up on the current ones.

In Love and peace and Truth,
Brian

[thessalonian]

Brian,

"Paul tells us that if anyone preaches a Jesus, other then the one he preached (what he preached about Jesus), they are wrong."

I am going to start another thread on circumcision and Acts 15 and Sola Scriptura. I don't want to derail this thread with that topic. Thanks for pointing me in that direction yesterday. I would like you to have a look if you could.

Sorry about the new thread with new questions. I know your in the corner. Perhaps your response about tradition and big hats will go better there.

I now understand what you are saying about the gentiles and will think about it a bit more. Thanks for the explanation.

Blessings

Thess

Edited October 27, 2004 by thessalonian

[Brother Adam]

Brian,

Division exists today because of man-made doctrine. You are right. Doctrines in Protestantism are modeled often based on that which Protestantism split off - the Catholic Church, with new ideas about what the Bible says that had never before been heard of in all of Christendom for 1500 years. The idea of a symbolic communion was foriegn to every single Christian until Zwingli introduced it in the late 1500's. That means every Christian until the late 1500's believed in baptismal regeneration. Do you assert that all Christians including those who taught it in scripture and the Apostles disciples were wrong until a fanatic came along in the late 1500's? To me that is similiar to accepting the claims of Joseph Smith based on his interpretation of scripture.

You also mention judging the claims of the JW's based on scripture. There is certianly nothing wrong with this. We should be studing the Holy Scriptures daily. They are certianly profitable for much. However, they are not sufficient as the sole rule of faith. And never do they make the claim. I think that most of us would find ourselves extremely out of place in early Christianity. When there was no Bible. Only the Old Testament. And doctrinal truth was given by the Church, not by a majority rules position, or by scholars or teachers. And while there were doctrinal disputes in the early church among different churches, it was settled when the leaders of the Church spoke.

Many Protestant Churches have truth. Aspects of truth can even be found in Islam, such as their belief in one god. There indeed is only one God. The fullness of truth is in the Catholic Church. Catholics don't "judge" other churches or induviduals. We look at doctrine, and if it is wrong, it is wrong. You can't have 200 ideas of what communion is and everyone be right. As I have mentioned before, I have no ills about my Protestant past. It taught me many valuable lessons. You will often find the opposite to be true with Catholics who leave the Church, such as ICTHUS. They are many times harbor great bitter and hatred and even self-righteousness, clearly not Christ like qualities.They are usually angry about something personal (a bad experience), but it is hardly ever due solely to what they believe is an wrong claim by the Church

And you don't always have to answer every question and claim. You're one loan Protestant among a sea of Catholics When I was a Protestant here, I just picked out what interested me, and talked about it. I certianly didn't have time to always answer every claim.

God Bless you on your journey,
Bro. Adam

Bro. Adam

Edited October 28, 2004 by Brother Adam

[Briguy]

Hi Adam, thanks for the nice post. I like the idea of being on a journey, because that is what it is. I love to look at the Bible and search for Truth. I have changed my mind on things from time to time because it was right. I think as you mature in Christ, growth can bring change, actions and sometimes certain beliefs. Anyway, the one thing that struct me is taht you said that the Catholic Church looks at doctrine and wrong is wrong in that respect. However, I think that can be problematic when the doctrine you exaime and judge against, comes from the Bible and Tradition and the Magist., because man is involved in two of those. Also, if the CC establishes the doctrine it stands to reason that other non Catholic fellowships will not be following the doctrine. (I know that was just brilliant)

Adam, I don't believe that baptismal regeneration was taught until the 1500's, but will look further into that becaause I admit I just don't know. I don't see it at all in scripture so I will look into it. Another challange - YIKES!!

More coming,
In Christ,
Brian

[thessalonian]

Brian,

I don't need you to answer all of my questions. I would like to see what you say on the trusted friend one and if you could give me a short response on the other thread about Acts 15, the Bereans and Sola Scriptura that would be great.

[Brother Adam]

Brian,

I'm not sure I completely understand your statement, but let me say that man was involved in the writing of the new testament. The leaders of the Church were given the authority by Christ to be just that, and St. Paul admonishes us to hold fast to Tradition.

On baptism: here are some statements from the early Christian Church:
(I would encourage you to explore www.catholic.com where this came from. I can provide for you for free a cd-rom with the 38 volume set of the writings of early Chrisitans if you would like)




One key Scripture reference to being "born again" or "regenerated" is John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

This verse is so important that those who say baptism is just a symbol must deny that Jesus here refers to baptism. "Born again" Christians claim the "water" is the preached word of God.

But the early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism. Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).

No Church Father referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism.


Justin Martyr



"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).


Irenaeus



"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).


Tertullian



"[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’" (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).


Hippolytus



"The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism" (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217]).


The Recognitions of Clement



"But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (The Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).


Testimonies Concerning the Jews



"That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]. . . . Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you’ [John 6:53]. That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works" (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:25–26 [A.D. 240]).


Cyprian of Carthage



"[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).


Council of Carthage VII



"And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ . . . Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ" (Seventh Carthage [A.D. 256]).


Cyril of Jerusalem



"Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul. . . . When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, ‘Unless a man be born again,’ and he adds the words ‘of water and of the Spirit,’ ‘he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it" (Catechetical Lectures 3:4 [A.D. 350]).


Athanasius



"[A]s we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened" (Four Discourses Against the Arians 3:26[33] [A.D. 360]).


Basil the Great



"This then is what it means to be ‘born again of water and Spirit’: Just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit’s presence there" (The Holy Spirit 15:35 [A.D. 375]).


Ambrose of Milan



"Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God" (The Holy Spirit 1:6[75–76] [A.D. 381]).

"The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11–12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.
. . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (Abraham 2:11:79–84 [A.D. 387]).

"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (The Mysteries 4:20 [A.D. 390]).


Gregory of Nyssa



"[In] the birth by water and the Spirit, [Jesus] himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by his own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things he became the firstborn of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to his own by water and the Spirit" (Against Eunomius 2:8 [A.D. 382]).


John Chrysostom



"[N]o one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]" (The Priesthood 3:5–6 [A.D. 387]).


Gregory of Nazianz



"Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin. And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the Spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths" (Oration on Holy Baptism 7–8 [A.D. 388]).


The Apostolic Constitutions



"Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13]. . . . [H]e that out of contempt will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, ‘Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ And again, ‘He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned’" [Mark 16:16] (Apostolic Constitutions 6:3:15 [A.D. 400]).


Augustine



"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]).

"Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,’ made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’" [Matt. 10:32] (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

[Briguy]

Hi Adam, lots of information there. All of your qoutes are from men, therefore subject to error. It is funny you wrote this as my pastor said just yesterday, the last thing you(meaning our congregation) needed to hear was his opinion. He was eluding to the fact that he needs to just deliver the Word of God as it is and not with a spin. On John 5, I have said before to make "water" anything but water is too assume a meaning. The Greek word here is just plain old water and is a word just simply making the case for a birth of flesh and a birth of Holy Spirit, as defined in the next verse. To make water here baptism or the word of God is just trying to make a verse say what one wants. The water is birth water and symboloishes the fact that we are born with a "flesh". The second birth is of the Holy Spirit and creates in us a clean heart, that is a soul of light, bound toward heaven, at the "appointed time of death" when the flesh, and all its problems, can be removed. Oops went on longer then I meant to there.

Trusted friend - Thess. I am blanking here, please quote the scripture again and what you think and then I will respond. I know you brought this up before but I couldn't find it sorry.

Oh, I will respond to tradition next if I can.

Adam, I think above I meant to say that I don't believe only Baptismal regeneration was taught until the 1500's. I think that is what some would like to think but I don't see that at all from the writings of the apostles so I can't see that every early believer/leader would get it wrong. Sorry about the lack of substance with this post.

In Christ,
Brian

[thessalonian]

Brian:

"Trusted friend - Thess. I am blanking here, please quote the scripture again and what you think and then I will respond. I know you brought this up before but I couldn't find it sorry."

Could Judas have been Jesus's trusted friend? That is the question if you want it more plain. Can anyone who is not of God be called God's (Jesus was God) trusted friend. I am not sure I can make it more clear than that. The scriptures I am asking from you.

Thanks

Thess

[Briguy]

tra·di·tion .
1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.
a. A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage.
b. A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: followed family tradition in dress and manners. See Synonyms at heritage.
2. A body of unwritten religious precepts.
3. A time-honored practice or set of such practices.
4. Law. Transfer of property to another.

Mark 7:
8] For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. [9] And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. [13] Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Col 2:
[6] As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
[7] Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

2 Thess.
[3] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
[4] Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
[5] Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
[6] And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
[7] For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
[8] And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
[9] Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
[10] And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
[11] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
[12] That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
[13] But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
[14] Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[15] Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Thess. 3
[5] And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.
[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
[7] For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
[8] Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
[9] Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

1 Peter 1
17] And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
[18] Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
[19] But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Hi Guys, sorry for all the scripture and for such a long post. You know by now when I include scripture I generally try to give verses around the key verse to show context. In terms of tradition, there is no argument for some formal system of handing down of beliefs, doctrines, leadership, etc… at least there is no scriptural support of this practice. I only found two references in the KJV that had “tradition” as being positive. The rest all say the passing down of “mens” traditions is not a good thing. The verse from Peter says for sure that tradition does not save souls, the blood of Jesus is what does that (I know you believe that also). The only positive tradition verses from the KJV anyway are in 2 Thess. The first one, which is quoted most by those who view tradition as important as scripture, is referring to what the generation who is around when the anti-Christ will need to do. Let’s avoid the rapture topic here. There will be an evil revealed at a point in time. A specific “wicked one” at a specific time. A believer will be challenged as that evil increases, to hold off that evil, Paul sys here to rely on what you know to be true. Stand firm by prayer, worship, etc… as you always have done. This “tradition” verse does not help the case for the passing down of doctrine. Used by itself it is way out of context. The Thess. 3 verse is simply about having a walk in the Lord that mimics what they saw out of Paul and his friends. Paul is saying you have seen us stand firm in our faith so learn from us and carry on the tradition you see from us. It is about firmness of conviction when times are tough and follows the line in a broader sense of the other Thess. verses I discussed first.

Tradition as being equal to God’s word, in terms of importance, is not supported by what we see in scripture, especially in the NT “body” that is “ Holy Spirit driven, not “Law Obedience” driven. In fact, there seems to be more of a warning about “tradition” then there does a support of it.

Trusted friend response to come.

In Christ,
Brian

[thessalonian]

Brian,

Wow. I have to tell you it never ceases to amaze me (sorry if this offends) how many excuses those who believe in SS can come up with to write 2 Thess 2:15 out of the Bbile. Sorry if this is blunt but your interprutation of this is a new one on me. I do wonder what commentary you got it out of or is it your own idea? To think that Paul wasn't writing those words for the current day Christians of thessalonica is simply increddible. He doesn't say "so then brethern in the future...".

As for your polling method of x number of verses are in favor of a topic and x number are against I guess we had better reinstitute slavery since the majority of verses are in favor of that. I think a more level headed approach to all of this tradition stuff is the Catholic approach of recognizing that there are different types of tradition. There are traditions that are practices. Now this one is interesting for starters. Do you really think that God is against men washing dishes or hands before they eat? I certainly hope you do these things. Or how about giving all of their money to God and/or the Church.


Luke 18:22
When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; SELL ALL that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

The problem with the way the Pharasees were following the Corban rule was that they were doing it to shelter there income so they wouldn't have to care for their aging parents. No Jesus was not against the tradition but the imposition of the traidtion over the commandments of God, thus to shelter income in order to avoid the commandment to "honor your father and mother" was an abomination and showed the heart of the pharasees but to give money to the poor and to God as the widow who only had three penies and gave them all is a differnt matter.

But in Catholicism we recognize another type of tradition. That of the one in 2 Thes 2:15, 3:16, AND YOU MISSED ONE.

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

This one looks pretty much like it goes well with 2 Thes 2:15 which you try to write off as some future event. Can you do the same with this one? As for nothing about traditions being passed on I think there are a few problems with that. I really would like you to go to my Acts 15 thread. The decision on circumcision was initially passed on by WORD OF MOUTH. It was clearly not sent out in the letter delivered from the council. Further, 2 Tim 2:2 says "what you have HEARD in the prescence of many witnesses, write down so you can pass it along.". Oh wait, it doesn't.

Timothy 2:2
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Now why doesn't he just write down all of these things for them. Why doesn't he say, well all you really need to do is pass on this book I am writing to you. No Brian I think you are quite wrong both in method and doctrine.

There of course is another type of tradition about doctrines that are passed on that are false. I think Protestantism has a serious problem there since these are traditions that are not apostolic in origen and therefore cannot be traced through history back to the apostles. i.e. they are not prevailing doctines for all time. Sola Scirptura and Sola Fide, non-regeneration in baptism, and symbolic only lords supper are just a few.


Please go to my other thread and answer that thread. I am much more interested in your answer there than the trusted friend thing.

By the way where are the things that John wanted to deliver in pen and ink in his last letter but chose instead to deliver them in person. They sounded pretty important to me.




Blessings

Thess

Edited November 2, 2004 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

By the way, this is an interesting verse with regard to this thread.

2 Peter 2:20-21
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.

Seems to add a bit of creedence to Hebrew 6 don't you think.

Hebrews 6:4-6
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

Here's another good one.

Galatians 3:3-4
Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain?

Hypothetical loss of salvation?

blessings

[thessalonian]

By the way Brian you poll has a serious flaw. The concept of tradition includes handing down or handing on of TRADITIONS, some written, some oral. So those verses that mention handing down or on should be considered as well. I don't have time to do much more than post them right now.


Luke 1:2
just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,


Acts 6:14
for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us."


2 Peter 2:21
For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.

Jude 1:3
Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.


This stuff really should move over to my other thread.

Blessings