Challange for protestant

[pyranima]

Ok we can see from 1 Tim 3:14-16 that there is an established Church. so lets see which church is the true Church and lets do it from the bible. find something in the bible and ask someone elses (and your) church has that attribute. its a bible study... YAY.

ok here is a good one


does your Church teach that Baptism is needed for Salvatoin?

Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16 ... suggests baptism of all, incl. children.
Jn 3:5; Rom 6:4; Mk 16:16 ... necessity of baptism.
Col 2:11-12 ... circumcision (normally performed on infants c.f. Lk 2:21; Gen 17:12) replaced by baptism.
Acts 22:16 ... baptism removes sin.
1 Pet 3:21 ... baptism saves by water.

[Eutychus]

There you go again. { credit to Ronald Reagan for that line...}

You START off with an UNDERSTANDING of "Church" that is unsupportable out of the box.

DEFINE it.

What does EKKLESIA mean, the root, the genesis, the use by the Greeks BEFORE it was applied in the NT.

Then we can begin. Like Sola Scriptura, and Grace, you are using a completely unique language set that was developed by the Catholic Church and without the Tiber Decoder Ring, communication is impossible.

[DAF]

Pyranima, why are you on this shooting rampage of the protestants?

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1039440' date='Aug 7 2006, 09:32 PM']
There you go again. { credit to Ronald Reagan for that line...}

You START off with an UNDERSTANDING of "Church" that is unsupportable out of the box.

DEFINE it.

What does EKKLESIA mean, the root, the genesis, the use by the Greeks BEFORE it was applied in the NT.

Then we can begin. Like Sola Scriptura, and Grace, you are using a completely unique language set that was developed by the Catholic Church and without the Tiber Decoder Ring, communication is impossible.
[/quote]
let's hear yours.

you know you'll definitely hear ours.

Edited August 8, 2006 by ReinnieR

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1039440' date='Aug 7 2006, 10:32 PM']Then we can begin. Like Sola Scriptura, and Grace, you are using a completely unique language set that was developed by the Catholic Church and without the Tiber Decoder Ring, communication is impossible.[/quote]Who told you about our decoder rings? I'd better enter your information into the secret Vatican database. You may know too much.

[Justified Saint]

Given Eutychus response, we should also keep in mind a certain kind of Protestant. Many Protestants are willing to accept their own indebtness to the historic Catholic Church in their very understanding of the Bible, soteriology, sacramentology etc., but others like our friend here are afflicted with a kind of ahistorical conception of Christianity that does in fact make communication impossible.

[Eutychus]

[quote]soteriology, sacramentology etc., but others like our friend here are afflicted with a kind of ahistorical conception of Christianity that does in fact make communication impossible. [/quote]

Uhhhh....I just asked a question, and look at the responses.

Communication really is impossible when two groups use a common word, but when both apply radically divergent meanings TO that word.

Note the irony here... I asked for the true GREEK historical meaning of the word EKKLESIA. And our dear friend here replies with something about AHISTORICAL { new invention, not supported by history } understandings.

It really was a VERY simple request, what did EKKLESIA mean in the context of Greek cities pre 33A.D.

I submit that a certain group has actually tried to redefine that concept, as evidenced by the word, into something that it didn't mean then, and doesn't mean now.

[Anomaly]

Eut,
You won't be able to engage in a serious or reasonable discussion here. As soon as you make a point, someone will jump in with a wild accusation, or a silly remark, or a tangental comment, or impune your 'motive', or dismiss you with a generalization.

[Aloysius]

oh please. chill out. (and stop playing holier-than-thou victem to all our "mean and unreasonable" quirks, if anything we say gets in the way of serious dialogue: we apologize, we're only human (not superhuman like anomaly) but do remember that you are human too, and on the same playing field, and probably holding just as many roadblocks to dialogue that we are holding)

ekklessia means assembly.

but as I see it, that's irellevant to this proposed "bible study" thing. describing the beliefs held by the early church as described in the Bible and comparing it with what you (and your own denomination or church) today believes and seeing whether they match up is a good idea.

the early church was organized around apostles and the people they instituted to lead the assembly in each location as an apostle of that apostle (from the original meaning of apostle, to be sent on a mission, they were sent on a mission to lead the assembly by the original apostles). what they believed and taught should be perfectly in line with what you (and the members and leaders of your assembly) belive and teach.

[Justified Saint]

Eutychus,

Aloysius is right, your question is irrelevant.

I was pointing out how some Protestants won't need to ask some of the questions you do with the same kind of importance vested in the answer you are expecting.

Edited August 8, 2006 by Justified Saint

[Eutychus]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1039573' date='Aug 8 2006, 02:53 AM']Eut,
You won't be able to engage in a serious or reasonable discussion here. As soon as you make a point, someone will jump in with a wild accusation, or a silly remark, or a tangental comment, or impune your 'motive', or dismiss you with a generalization
[/quote]


I know, this isn't the first turnip truck that I've followed with Roman Catholics.

Working any "theme" outside their box of pre-written, cut and paste, no brainer answers isn't something they seem to excel at. I guess this is really just a more sophisticated version of the old Baltimore Catechism days, where you regurgitated the preappoved answer on command. Now with database libraries, it is cut and past Dave Armstrong, Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Mark Shea, or Clarabelle the Clown and pretend that you understood the question, not to mention the proffered answer.

Given that most here seem to be mere kiddies, I will take that into consideration, remembering the follies and foibles of my own misspent youth.

Edited August 8, 2006 by Eutychus

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1039633' date='Aug 8 2006, 07:31 AM']
oh please. chill out. (and stop playing holier-than-thou victem to all our "mean and unreasonable" quirks, if anything we say gets in the way of serious dialogue: we apologize, we're only human (not superhuman like anomaly) but do remember that you are human too, and on the same playing field, and probably holding just as many roadblocks to dialogue that we are holding)[/quote]
[color="#FF6600"][font="Impact"]Ow[/font].[/color][quote name=''Justified Saint' date='Aug 8 2006' date=' 08:46 AM' post= '1039666'']
Aloysius is right, your question is irrelevant. [/quote]
[color="#3366FF"][font="Impact"]Omph[/font].[/color]





I guess I had an incorrect idea that Protestants and Catholics often had a different understanding for the same word, such as 'saved' and 'worship', etc. Now I know it's my superhumanity that's been skewing my perception.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1039577' date='Aug 8 2006, 06:59 AM']
Eut,
You won't be able to engage in a serious or reasonable discussion here. As soon as you make a point, someone will jump in with a wild accusation, or a silly remark, or a tangental comment, or impune your 'motive', or dismiss you with a generalization.[/quote]Ironically:

1) Eutychus made the [b]tangential comment [/b] (i.e. definition of [i]ekklesia[/i]). The topic is supposed to be the question of Baptism as necessary for Salvation.
2) Eutychus made the [b]silly remark [/b] about Tiber Decoder Rings.
3) Eutychus [b]dismissed us with a generalization [/b] (i.e. saying that we were "using a completely unique language set that was developed by the Catholic Church"), as if protestants and Catholics haven't had a running dialogue for almost 500 years.

[quote name='Eutychus']I submit that a certain group has actually tried to redefine that concept, as evidenced by the word, into something that it didn't mean then, and doesn't mean now.[/quote]I won't try to address the argument about the definition of [i]ekklesia[/i]. But, I wanted to mention that, if you make a statement like this, you might quickly be forced to question the whole foundation of Christian teachings. All the way back to the New Testament writings, it's clear that Christianity's view of the Old Testament is a radical departure from the traditional Jewish teachings. This was the reason that some early Christians even considered rejecting the Old Testament as inspired text.

On the other hand, the whole of protestant theology is filled with redefinitions of words into something that they didn't mean before the protestant reformation. I hope you realize that dismissing Catholicism with this particular generalization isn't too constructive.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1039678' date='Aug 8 2006, 11:00 AM']
I know, this isn't the first turnip truck that I've followed with Roman Catholics.

Working any "theme" outside their box of pre-written, cut and paste, no brainer answers isn't something they seem to excel at. I guess this is really just a more sophisticated version of the old Baltimore Catechism days, where you regurgitated the preappoved answer on command. Now with database libraries, it is cut and past Dave Armstrong, Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Mark Shea, or Clarabelle the Clown and pretend that you understood the question, not to mention the proffered answer.[/quote]How dare those Catholics organize and provide a robust defense of their Faith. Protestants would never do such a thing. LOL

[Eutychus]

[quote] [u]I won't try to address the argument about the definition of ekklesia[/u]. But, I wanted to mention that, if you make a statement like this, [b][u]you might quickly be forced to question the whole foundation of Christian teachings.[/u][/b] All the way back to the New Testament writings, it's clear that Christianity's view of the Old Testament is a radical departure from the traditional Jewish teachings. This was the reason that some early Christians even considered rejecting the Old Testament as inspired text.[/quote]

Yeah, how horrid, rethinking all those extrabiblical practices that seeped into the EKKLESIA community as the pagan cultures around them seeped into the new religion.

A "Radical Departure" from Judaism....at first??

Have you even READ the book of Acts?

Try rereading chapter 2 again. DAILY they met in the Temple.....then went to homes for a REMEMBERANCE meal, agape meal, where they ATE BREAD/BROKE BREAD { not bodies and blood } and sang songs.

The community stayed IN Jerusalem till right before the Romans attacked 68-70 when they fled across the Jordan to Perea. From that time on, they were viewed as a distinct community quite seperate from the mainstream Jews.

FWIW, EKKLESIA translates best as MILITIA/AD HOC GROUP, or people called out in a time of trouble. It was NEVER THEN understood to be a worldwide denomination, with ranks and orders culminating in a city state ruled by an emperorer, with dukes, barons, and knights. { Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests } that was the Nicolaitan modality that Jesus said he HATED and for emphasis repeated that twice in Revelation in His revelation to John to TWO seperate local churches. The church was not supposed to mirror the Moses/High Priest model, but be a flat localized congration of believers, that only came together in a brief period to settle matters of interest to the entire body.

[Justified Saint]

Rather, it was the localization of the church in its very early history that was co-emergent with the bishop as head of an order of clerics.

It's difficult to imagine that the whole church and all its believers could have screwed it all up so early on!

Edited August 8, 2006 by Justified Saint

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1039736' date='Aug 8 2006, 12:30 PM']FWIW, EKKLESIA translates best as MILITIA/AD HOC GROUP, or people called out in a time of trouble. It was NEVER THEN understood to be a worldwide denomination, with ranks and orders culminating in a city state ruled by an emperorer, with dukes, barons, and knights. { Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests } that was the Nicolaitan modality that Jesus said he HATED and for emphasis repeated that twice in Revelation in His revelation to John to TWO seperate local churches. The church was not supposed to mirror the Moses/High Priest model, but be a flat localized congration of believers, that only came together in a brief period to settle matters of interest to the entire body.[/quote]Using this logic, one must conclude that St. Paul had no right to dictate to these "flat localized congregations of believers" in his epistles. Right? Could the primitive local church's reject the teachings of St. Paul or the other apostles? I would ask if a modern protestant church could reject St. Paul's Epistles; but, many already do...

The Council of Jerusalem seems to indicate a single group that could make decisions for the entire Church.

Let's use this to return to the actual thread topic. Can two "flat localized congregations of believers" come to opposite conclusions regarding the necessity of Baptism for salvation? If so, are their own opposing "truths" valid for the members of each congregation? In other words, could Baptism be efficacious (i.e. conferring God's grace, removing original sin, etc) for one congregation and purely symbolic (i.e. no grace) for another?

[Eutychus]

[quote] Rather, it was the localization of the church in its very early history that was co-emergent with the bishop [b][u][color="#990000"]as head of an order of clerics[/color][/u][/b].[/quote]

Good grief.

Let's try this one again.

Starting with Revelation { you know that book they never teach Catholics other than Rev 12, and that improperly? } IMMEDIATELY we notice a particular HATE, yes indeed, HATE that Jesus exhibits towards a unique group of men, He identifies them as NICOLAITAN's { from the compound Greek NIKE = VICTORIOUS OVER, and LAOS = LAITY/COMMON MAN } ... or to make this perfectly clear, professional hierarcial clergy that rule over men and elevate themselves.

Now, is this a misapplication or a mistaken use of the word? Hardly, using that silly protestant idea of letting scripture interpret scripture, we zip over to Matthew 23 where, with the exception of the first sentence or two, and a substitution of Archbishop, Bishop, Cardinal and Pope for Pharisee, Rabbi, etc, you can find the modern and medieval Roman Catholic clergy clearly identified. Using the harshest language possible, over and over, Jesus condems that sort of position and pride in the churchmen of HIS DAY, and in Revelation, continues on and projects with a near fulfillment in the two churches mentioned with a far prophetic show of what and where it would go as the pagans came into the church and gradually morped what was to be a small, local, powerless group, into a pride filled, pomp, attraction and magnet for the men in silk and gilded hockeysticks who adored being called "your eminence, your excellency, holy father, father, and other such grandious pompous arrogant titles and living a live of the Roman aristocracy surrounded by fawning synchophants and art and the finest wine cellars and flunkies waiting on them hand and foot.

[b][u]And from this, YOU GET, that Jesus WANTED a PROFESSIONAL ORDER OF CLERICS?[/b][/u]

We must have been educated on different planets then. My 12 years of Catholic education had to be unlearned, and the Holy Spirit employed, to let me SEE what God wanted me to see, and forget what PROFESSIONAL CLERICS had brainwashed me to believe.

May you too, someday, be so blessed and get the blessings that accrue to those that learn and DO what is indicated in Revelation 18:4, the VERSE OF THE DAY for those called and tapped.

Edited August 8, 2006 by Eutychus

[Justified Saint]

Eutychus,

I stated a simple historical fact to illustrate the huge disconnect between your cut and paste whacked out conspiracy theories/interpretations and historical reality. Given the obvious confusion and agitation in your post, I'd say it achieved its purpose.

It is hard not to be dismissive when you have traded in your poor (unfortunately) Catholic education for an equally (indeed less) Protestant/fundamentalist one. Despite your occasional use of Greek words, you aren't fooling anyone (it is akin to using big words that you don't even understand).

I really don't care anything about your interpretation -- it's all over the place in terms of books and passages. I would suggest you go elsewhere if you want to pass of your readings for logical thought.

Now, if you want to return to the topic that would be another matter:

Is baptism necessary for salvation? Is repentance?

Edited August 8, 2006 by Justified Saint

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1039736' date='Aug 8 2006, 12:30 PM']
Yeah, how horrid, rethinking all those extrabiblical practices that seeped into the EKKLESIA community as the pagan cultures around them seeped into the new religion.

A "Radical Departure" from Judaism....at first??

Have you even READ the book of Acts?

Try rereading chapter 2 again.[/quote]
As a matter of fact, I have read the Acts of the Apostles; and, I think that the differences between established Judaism and Christianity (i.e. "the Way") is most obvious in the book of Acts. Let's look at some more of the text.

[b]The Apostles' Teachings at odds with the Sadducees[/b]
Acts 4:1-2 ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts4.htm#v1"]link[/url])[quote name='Acts 4:1-2']While they were still speaking to the people, the priests, the captain of the temple guard, and the Sadducees confronted them, disturbed that they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.[/quote]
Acts 5:17-18 ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts5.htm#v17"]link[/url])
[quote name='Acts 5:17-18']Then the high priest rose up and all his companions, that is, the party of the Sadducees, and, filled with jealousy, laid hands upon the apostles and put them in the public jail.[/quote]
[b]The Apostles' Teachings at odds with the Pharisees[/b]
Acts 15:5 ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts15.htm#v5"]link[/url])[quote name='Acts 15:5']But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law."[/quote]So, yeah, I would say that Christianity had some new theological ideas/interpretations that were a departure from Judaism of the time. Not the least of these was the belief that Our Lord Jesus Christ is God. I think it's fair to say that most of the Christian interpretation of OT prophesies as they relate to Our Lord were not held by Judaism before the advent of Christianity.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1039809' date='Aug 8 2006, 01:04 PM']
Good grief.

Starting with Revelation { you know that book they never teach Catholics other than Rev 12, and that improperly? } [/quote]
Yes I know that book. It is the one Scott Hahn (former Prot pastor) taught about where he showed me just how heavenly the Mass is. Thanks for reminding me.

(The Lamb's Supper)