The One Baptism

[farouk]

I'm not a Calvinist. Good article (if you're Catholic). Even though Got Questions is a Calvinist site they have some things right

@RLT63 I hadn't realized the provenance of that site.... the sovereignty of God is strongly present in Scripture, anyway.

 

[RLT63]

@RLT63 I hadn't realized the provenance of that site.... the sovereignty of God is strongly present in Scripture, anyway.

Most of the material on that site is correct. I haven't searched for predestination or the 5 points of Calvinism though. Just did this search and this doesn't sound Calvinist. Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct? | GotQuestions.org

 

[RLT63]

He is only Infallible in matters of teaching faith and morals because he is guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Pope isn’t impeccable or flawless in every thought or decision. If he were – I would ask him who was going to win the next 10 Super Bowls and Kentucky Derbies.

As for it being “odd” that Peter needed correction - I can give you a litany of Protestant leaders who were caught misbehaving – but it doesn’t negate the fact that they are still the LEADERS of their factions.
Do you find that to be “odd”?

I find no evidence that Peter was the first Pope

 

[Illuminator]

I find no evidence that Peter was the first Pope

I find no evidence that GotQuestions accurately describes anything Catholic, and the biblical and historical data that Peter was the first pope is overwhelming. Paul scolded Peter because of his behavior, NOT HIS TEACHING. Peter and Paul were coworkers, not competitors. They had no theological differences. Peter didn't teach anything while hiding from the Judaizers so using that worn out argument to slam Peter's authority makes no sense. But pope-bashers don't care, they do it anyway.

 

[RLT63]

I find no evidence that GotQuestions accurately describes anything Catholic, and the biblical and historical data that Peter was the first pope is overwhelming. Paul scolded Peter because of his behavior, NOT HIS TEACHING. Peter and Paul were coworkers, not competitors. They had no theological differences. Peter didn't teach anything while hiding from the Judaizers so using that worn out argument to slam Peter's authority makes no sense. But pope-bashers don't care, they do it anyway.

I respectfully disagree. Galatians 2:14-21. What was the incident at Antioch in Galatians 2:11–14? | GotQuestions.org

 

[RLT63]

Scripture doesn't say that!!

Only you, the men who taught you that nonsense and @Charlie24 say that.

No man taught me that.

 

[RLT63]

Ummmmm, the I information I gave you came straight out of the BIBLE – not from the Catechism.

So, what YOU are rejecting is the Word opf Almighty GOD . . .

NONSENSE.

Water BAPTISM is required for salvation by Jesus and the Apostles (John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:37-38).

Not ONLY did Jesus give His Apostles and their successors the power to forgive sins in His name – He gave them the power to hold them bound (John 20:21-23, Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18) through CONFESSION.
Pail himself preached about this Ministry of Reconciliation (2 Cor. 2:10, 2 Cor. 5:18-20).

EUCHARIST - Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood – you have NO LIFE in you (John 6:33).

Sick and dying people are to be prayed over and ANOINTED by the Presbyters (Priests) – and if they have committed any sins – they will be forgiven (James 5:16).

Acts 2:4, Acts 8:14-17, 19:1-6, Eph. 4:30 describe the laying of hands and being sealed in the Holy Spirit in CONFIRMATION.

Gee – by MY count – that’s FIVE “man-made” Sacraments right there . . .

Acts 16:30-31

 

[BreadOfLife]

Catholic or Roman Catholic.? They all think they were the first Church Catholic (term) - Wikipedia

This is yet ANOTHER example of your complete failure to do proper research.

“Roman” (Latin) is simply the name of ONE of about twenty or so Liturgical Rites that comprise the ONE Catholic Church. Some of the other Rites include the Byzantine, Coptic, Melkite, Maronite, Alexandrian, etc. We are all in FULL communion with each other and the differences are cultural, not doctrinal.

Anti-Catholics are always misrepresenting the Catholic Church by erroneously calling it the “Roman” Catholic Church. Byzantines, Coptics, Melkites, Maronites, Alexandrians, etc. are NOT Roman Catholics.

PS – instead of posting links to inaccurate or otherwise idiotic articles – how about doing your homework and writing a cogent response??

 

[BreadOfLife]

What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church? | GotQuestions.org

Ummmmm, first of all, Einstein - this is an OP ED piece not a serious historical record.
It was written by an ANTI-Catholic – NOT a historian. Learn how to rightly divide what you read.

Although the historical and doctrinal inaccuracies in this pile of excrement are too numerous to address individually – there ARE a few that are so comically-stupid that that ANY serious student of Church history would have recognized in a nano-second.

The FIRST red flag that should have tipped you off was the opening, that states: “Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles.”

Even those scholars today who HATE the Catholic Church acknowledge that the it is the original Church. They simply claim that it became apostate at a LATER date.
Unfortunately, for this to be true – you would have to believe that Jesus Christ is a LIAR when he guaranteed that His Church would NOT succumb to darkness.

And although MANY Protestants are willing to believe this – Catholics are NOT. He is GOD – not some angry little liar on an internet forum . . .

Do your HOMEWORK and maybe we can have an intelligent conversation about your disdain for Christ’s Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Acts 16:30-31

Acts 16:30-31
He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
They replied, “BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Even the DEMONS believe (James 2:19). Are they saved??
If ALL you do is “believe” – then you are NP better off than they are.

In Scripture – “Believing” in Jesus Christ entails MUCH more.
- Being baptized (Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:5, Rom. 2:29, Rom. 6:1-11, Col. 2:12-17, 1 Peter 3:21)
- Picking up our cross daily to follow him (Matt. 16:24, Luke 9:23)
- Works of mercy and charity (Matt. 19:21, 25:31–46, Luke 18:22)
- Obeying his commandments (John 14:15, 15:10)
- Doing the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21, James 1:22)
- We must suffer with Christ (Matt. 10:38, 16:24, Mark 8:34, John 12:24, Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 1:5-7, Eph. 3:13, Phil. 1:29, 2 Tim. 1:8, 1 Peter 2:19-21, 4:1-2)

Faith requires obedience.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I find no evidence that Peter was the first Pope

That's a LIE.

In post #442 - and in 2 other posts on this thread - I gave a list with at least FIFTEEN reasos why Peter was the Chief Apostle. That's what the Pope IS.
YOU didn't refute a SINGLE ONE of those reasons.

ALL you've done is protest your usual, impotent denials . . .

 

[Illuminator]

I respectfully disagree. Galatians 2:14-21. What was the incident at Antioch in Galatians 2:11–14? | GotQuestions.org

Acts 2:1 Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.

2 And I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain.

It looks to me that Paul was divinely sent to Peter, James and John to verify his gospel was the same as theirs "lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain." This is not highlighted by the Calvinoid "GotQuestions" because it doesn't fit their anti-Peter agenda.

Acts 16:30-31

Acts 16:30-32. You left out verses 32-34 because it gives you problems we don't have.
31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.
NT Baptism of Whole “Households”

 

[RLT63]

Acts 16:30-31
He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
They replied, “BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Even the DEMONS believe (James 2:19). Are they saved??
If ALL you do is “believe” – then you are NP better off than they are.

In Scripture – “Believing” in Jesus Christ entails MUCH more.
- Being baptized (Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:5, Rom. 2:29, Rom. 6:1-11, Col. 2:12-17, 1 Peter 3:21)
- Picking up our cross daily to follow him (Matt. 16:24, Luke 9:23)
- Works of mercy and charity (Matt. 19:21, 25:31–46, Luke 18:22)
- Obeying his commandments (John 14:15, 15:10)
- Doing the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21, James 1:22)
- We must suffer with Christ (Matt. 10:38, 16:24, Mark 8:34, John 12:24, Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 1:5-7, Eph. 3:13, Phil. 1:29, 2 Tim. 1:8, 1 Peter 2:19-21, 4:1-2)

Faith requires obedience.

Sounds like you are working your way into Heaven. Something you share with JWs except they believe they are just going to be resurrected and live on earth. You're saying salvation depends on Jesus and XYZ. I choose to depend on Jesus.

 

[RLT63]

Acts 2:1 Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.

2 And I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain.

It looks to me that Paul was divinely sent to Peter, James and John to verify his gospel was the same as theirs "lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain." This is not highlighted by the Calvinoid "GotQuestions" because it doesn't fit their anti-Peter agenda.

It doesn't help your agenda either.

 

[RLT63]

That's a LIE.

In post #442 - and in 2 other posts on this thread - I gave a list with at least FIFTEEN reasos why Peter was the Chief Apostle. That's what the Pope IS.
YOU didn't refute a SINGLE ONE of those reasons.

ALL you've done is protest your usual, impotent denials . . .

If Peter was charged with being the first Pope your evidence would not convict him.

 

[Illuminator]

If Peter was charged with being the first Pope your evidence would not convict him.

That's because you rely on a false definition of "Pope".
Authority of the First Popes The Early Church and the Development of the Papacy

 

[RLT63]

That's because you rely on a false definition of "Pope".
Authority of the First Popes The Early Church and the Development of the Papacy

Was Peter the First Pope?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sounds like you are working your way into Heaven. Something you share with JWs except they believe they are just going to be resurrected and live on earth. You're saying salvation depends on Jesus and XYZ. I choose to depend on Jesus.

Nope - just showing you that YOUR definition of "Balieve" is NOT the Biblical definiton of Faith.
According to the Word of God (James 2:19) - you're NO better off than the DEMONS, aho also "believe".

Faith requires obedience and cooperation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If Peter was charged with being the first Pope your evidence would not convict him.

Hmmmm - another snappy, albeit, EMPTY denial.
You never seem to be able to Biblically-refute anything - but you've got that denial thing down pat.

Good luck with that . . .

 

[RLT63]

Nope - just showing you that YOUR definition of "Balieve" is NOT the Biblical definiton of Faith.
According to the Word of God (James 2:19) - you're NO better off than the DEMONS, aho also "believe".

Faith requires obedience and cooperation.

How do you know what my definition of believe is? All I did was quote a scripture. Do you have an issue with that scripture?