Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[Jim B]

Please learn how to multiquote properly. I cannot distinguish between what you said vs. What I said. You are mixing my words in with your own (With no clear distinction).

It’s simple to learn how to multiquote.

Just put your cursor below the sentence you want to reply to and hit the ”return” button or the “enter” button.

It will create a space for you to write.

You can keep doing this as needed.

<ignored>

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So what? You have made several personal attacks against me. Punctuation means nothing compared to slander!

I am not slandering you or attacking you. I am honestly trying to figure out what you believe because you are in defense of Liberalism. Liberals deny certain things of the faith. This is just a fact. It appears that you are either unaware of what Christian Liberalism actually is, or you are simply not being open to all of what Liberals believe (With it being a huge problem).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How do you know what the disciples understood? Are you a savant?

Your interpretation of Scripture is flawed, as usual!

Romans 6:4, "Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life." This is what baptism means. Period.

The disciples clearly baptized in water according to the Scripture verses I gave you.

Romans 6:4 is a parabolic picture of what water baptism represents (Which is Christ’s death).
Walking in newness of life (Mentioned in Romans 6) is the parabolic or symbolic picture of Christ’s resurrection.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Liberals have claimed that the story of Jonah is just a myth.
Liberals have claimed that the flood was local and not global.
Liberals tend to believe in Darwinian Evolutionism.
Granted, not all liberals are alike and there varying degrees of liberalism.
Basically anything major in the Bible a person wants to allegorize a truth to the point of rendering it obsolete is a liberal.

 

[Jim B]

I am not slandering you or attacking you. I am honestly trying to figure out what you believe because you are in defense of Liberalism. Liberals deny certain things of the faith. This is just a fact. It appears that you are either unaware of what Christian Liberalism actually is, or you are simply not being open to all of what Liberals believe (With it being a huge problem).

I have not said a single thing about liberalism. That is something that you brought up! It's obvious that Satan is prompting you to accuse another Christian! Frankly, I'm surprised that you pay attention to the devil!

I AM A SINCERE, BELIEVING CHRISTIAN! I will not discuss your personal attacks beyond what I have written here. If you want to to put you on ignore until you're free of Satan's influence, I will do so.

 

[Jim B]

Liberals have claimed that the story of Jonah is just a myth.
Liberals have claimed that the flood was local and not global.
Liberals tend to believe in Darwinian Evolutionism.
Granted, not all liberals are a like and there varying degrees of liberalism.
Basically anything major in the Bible a person wants to allegorize that is excessively wrong is a liberal.

This is nothing but bigoted garbage! These are the words of your teacher, Satan!

 

[lforrest]

Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

I don't know but it's funny to me that this question turned into a 41-page (and counting) argument. What do you think @lforrest?

View attachment 30894

I don't think water baptism saves, but has always been a ritual. That doesn't mean it isn't important.

Jesus commands his followers to Baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We can give the water baptism. Rather someone receives the Holy Spirit baptism, God knows.

 

[Grailhunter]

There are different levels of Christian liberalism.
Some who are liberal will not even admit that they are liberal.

Here is an article by Gotquestions, which gives you a breakdown of what a liberal looks like:

What is liberal Christian theology? | GotQuestions.org

What is liberal Christian theology? Why is liberal Christian theology so dangerous?

www.gotquestions.org

While some Christian Liberals do not fit the exact mold as given by Gotquestions, they are still liberal if they hold to certain points on that list. Many liberals tend to turn the Word of God into fables or fictional stories. I believe anyone who defends Christian liberalism is seriously in trouble with the LORD and they need to repent and become born again. I believe they cannot be reasoned with but only prayed for. Liberals want some semblance of the truth up to a point (i.e. the existence of God) but they do not want the precise or exact truth of what God offers (Thereby they are rejecting the one true God).

Better to disagree with people.
Applying labels is like peeing into a fan. It is one thing to be stupid and then another to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Not saying you are stupid at all. But label are like that. They are generally inaccurate and mostly a matter of perspective and just mean that you do not like what they believe. How many people believe exactly the same?

Liberal....heretic....cult....are mostly erroneous terms. It is better to disagree with accuracy. The Jews can consider Christianity a cult because they believe Christ was a man. The Catholic Church definitely considered Protestants heretics. And one Protestant denomination can call someone in another Protestant denomination a heretic or liberal. With thousands and thousands of Protestant denominations, your targets are nearly endless. The way the Catholic Church operates the Protestants could call the Catholic Church a cult. Some Christians call someone that believes in women's rights a liberal.....like they are not human too....same thing goes for slavery.....like they are not human. If you want to make yourself look bad or ignorant....just go pee in a fan.

Let me step down from this soap box.....don't get me wrong I call people names....demonrats....if I was stupid enough to be a democrat I probably would not call them that. I am just saying to be careful about applying labels that have no clear and accurate definition....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have not said a single thing about liberalism. That is something that you brought up! It's obvious that Satan is prompting you to accuse another Christian! Frankly, I'm surprised that you pay attention to the devil!

I AM A SINCERE, BELIEVING CHRISTIAN! I will not discuss your personal attacks beyond what I have written here. If you want to to put you on ignore until you're free of Satan's influence, I will do so.

Liberalism is labeled by the body of believers at large. It is taking a liberal stance or position towards certain truths, stories, or doctrines in the Bible. Some women may be liberal in the way they dress. If I were to say, “some women do dress conservatively,” that means they most likely would not be showing cleavage, and wearing mini skirts or see through clothing. Liberalism is the same in theology. If somebody is liberal in their theology or their approach to the Bible, then there are going to be certain things that they look at in the Bible from a more liberal stance or position. Some people do not like the name liberal when in fact that they are liberal (As I stated before).

Yes, sometimes people do misuse labels. I do get that. For example: There are some Christians who call all KJV Onlysts as Ruckmanites. This would not be a true label because Ruckman followers believed certain false things that Ruckman believed (like Racism, odd UFO conspiracies, and excessive inappropriate name calling). But not all KJV Onlysts agree with these things by Peter Ruckman, and they are actually disgusted by these other sick odd beliefs by him. So the burden of proof is upon the individual to say that they are being labeled falsely and prove that by external sources and or articles. We cannot change pre-existing terms or words in what they already mean. Meaning, if you want to prove that I am wrong in saying certain things about defining or labeling Christian Liberals, the burden of proof is on you to prove that by using external sources, articles, documents, facts, and or accounts by others.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is nothing but bigoted garbage!

Not at all. I grew up knowing a Pastor who thought the story of Jonah was a myth or fictional story.
This Pastor is a liberal because he does not believe the plain recorded account in Jonah.
Jesus even quoted from this real life narrative and He did not regard it as fictional.

These are the words of your teacher, Satan!

May the Lord rebuke you (For your false accusation).


Side Note:

Please keep in mind that I never said you were not a Christian. I just think you are confused as to what a Christian Liberal is, and your defense of Christian Liberalism goes against everything the Bible stands for. Yes, the Bible has metaphors within it, but they usually have indicators in the grammar or context that they are metaphors just like how we would know a metaphor in other writings. Please keep in mind that I have a very low tolerance of Christian Liberalism. If I believe a Christian is liberal, I will eventually try to cut off communications with them altogether (Because they are too far beyond the truth to be able to be reasoned with involving God’s Word). Therefore, in such a case: My best course of action is to simply pray for them so that they may know the truth (Whereby that truth will set them free).

 

[Jim B]

Not at all. I grew up knowing a Pastor who thought the story of Jonah was a myth or fictional story.
This Pastor is a liberal because he does not believe the plain recorded account in Jonah.
Jesus even quoted from this real life narrative and He did not regard it as fictional.



May the Lord rebuke you (For your false accusation).

Okay, I've had enough. I used to respect you, even if we disagreed. Now I no longer do. I'm putting you on "ignore", meaning I will read and respond to your posts only when I'm in the mood. Most of what you're posting these days is absolute, mean-spirited garbage. It's too bad that you've sunk to such a low position. I will pray for you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Okay, I've had enough. I used to respect you, even if we disagreed. Now I no longer do. I'm putting you on "ignore", meaning I will read and respond to your posts only when I'm in the mood. Most of what you're posting these days is absolute, mean-spirited garbage. It's too bad that you've sunk to such a low position. I will pray for you.

Jesus said narrow is the way (Matthew 7:14).
Jesus said “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34).
Jesus said of his own disciples some pretty heavy things on certain occasions.

I also was not the one providing emotional bolded statements, but I was trying to get you to support your beliefs and or statements with Scripture, articles, external sources, etcetera.

It’s not mean spirited of Jesus to do the following with His disciples.

“But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” (Luke 9:55).

But I did not even do that. All I did was condemn Christian Liberalism, which I backed up with an external article. There are many other articles out there condemning Christian LiberalIsm. It’s not mean spirited to condemn the belief that a Christian can just allegorize away certain parts of the Bible. Granted, again, there was no name calling or emotional outburst type statements when I said this, either. That is the difference between you and me (here).

Side Note:

It is also not unloving to refer to certain wrong beliefs attached with a label.
The Bible talks about the Sadducees, and they did not believe in the resurrection, angels, and things of the spirit (Acts 23:8). In essence they were liberals because they did not believe the plain account of the Word of God on the resurrection, angels, and the existence of the spirit.

 

[CadyandZoe]

And NOT everything YOU say is true – your incredible narcissism, notwithstanding . . .

Name calling reveals a weak argument.

Once again – according to YOU.

So what? The question is whether it is true or false.

The BIBLE, however, disagrees with you . . .
(Acts 1:20, 2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Tim. 1:12-14)

In what way do these passages defeat my claim?

Judas absolutely held an office – according to the sacred Word of God:
Acts 1:20
Let another take his OFFICE (Episkopay).

Why are you arguing semantics with me? From my perspective, you are reading Catholic dogma and Catholic Jargon INTO the text. You asked why there are so many Protestant denominations. Well among the many reasons is the habit of "proof-texting" where a denomination or the Catholic Church itself bases a doctrine on a single verse or even part of a verse. That is what YOU are doing. You found a verse where it mentions "office" and you fill that word with as much Catholic understanding as you can fit in there. But terms like "Bishop" and "Bishopric" are Catholic Jargon words, vocabulary specific to your religion. Peter is unfamiliar with the Catholic role of Bishop, a senior member of the Catholic clergy, usually in charge of a diocese and empowered to confer holy orders.

Peter is speaking about the loss of a fellow Apostle, an official representative of Jesus Christ to the world at large, authorized to testify about what Jesus actually said and what he did and what the Father said about him.

While it is true that an "ἐπίσκοπος" can refer to an overseer, it can also refer to other kinds of authority. In the case of Judas, he was an apostle, not a Bishop, and his main function as an apostle was to speak as a witness to what Jesus said and what he did. A catholic Bishop can NOT do that. No man alive today can take the office assigned to Judas.

Matthias WAS chosen by lot – but it was the Holy Spirit who chose him to succeed Judas.

Jesus told Peter that the Father was teaching him. To suggest that Peter, of necessity, resorted to dice rolling seems unsuitable to his relationship to the Spirit of Truth. Maybe by some miracle the dice ended up where the Holy Spirit wanted, but we have no evidence in the text to suggest it.

When a Congressman or a Senator dies – they are NOT simply “replaced”
Another is chosen to succeed their OFFICE, “Offices” are successive in that respect.

Two men were put forth to take the place of Judas. The candidates had to meet specific criteria.

Acts 2:21-22

Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” ​

No witnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus are alive today.

John 6:53-54
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you EAT THE FLESH of the Son of Man AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

The normal Greek word for the way a human eats is “Phagon”. HOWEVER, the word “Trogon” is used here which is the way an animal rips apart his food. We students of Scripture refer to this as hyperbole – exaggeration in order t o make a point.

“This IS my Body” - “This IS my blood” (Luke 22:19–20; Matt. 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; 1 Cor. 11:23–25)
NOWHERE do we read that this is just “symbolic” or metaphorical.

The symbolism is obvious within the context of the situation into which he was speaking. In this case, Jesus is performing the Jewish Seder, which is a scripted meal. The meal consists of various foods that represent aspects of the Exodus from Egypt. The host picks up one of the elements and tells what the element represents.

The Passover Seder is typically eaten by family and friends and the meal follows a script, whereby the children ask their father a series of questions concerning the elements. For instance, the father might uncover the first piece of unleavened bread and holds it. The children will then ask, "What is the meaning of this matzoh?" Then Father will explain the meaning of the matzoh in terms of the Exodus from Egypt.

Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal together. Jesus played the role of the "father" and gave the appropriate meanings of the elements. But this time, on their last Passover meal together, Jesus changed the meaning of two elements of the Passover meal: the matzoh and one of the wine cups. When Jesus said, "this is my body" he wasn't speaking literally; he was giving a new meaning to the matzoh.

Whereas, in earlier Passover meals, Jesus might have said something like "This is the bread of affliction which our fathers took with them out of Egypt and etc." This time Jesus says, "This is my body" changing the meaning of the bread. The Passover meal is intended to bring to mind events which the Hebrews shared in common. The communion service is intended to bring to mind what all Christians share in common. In other words, the essential significance of the bread and wine is remembrance. 1Corinthians 11:25 The point is to remember what Jesus did on the cross and why it is significant.

MOST of Jesus’s followers abandoned Him and returned to their former way of life, according to John 6:66 because this message was too radical for them.
Unfortunately, YOU have joined them . . .

Ummmmm, I’m NOT the one claiming that God puts different doctrines in everybody’s heads and calls it “Unity” . . .

Neither am I. You argue, incorrectly that a common corpus is the reason why many denominations exist. I don't that that follows.

 

[Grailhunter]

I once held to the view that baptism in Matthew 28:19-20 was in reference to being immersed into the teachings of Jesus Christ, but I no longer hold to that viewpoint because the disciples did not understand Jesus’ words to mean this. We don’t later see the disciples explaining this to others this concept. What we do see is the disciples baptizing others in water in the name of Jesus. That is what we do see and we don’t see God correcting them on their water baptizing others.

How many ways have you been proven wrong on this. Acts 2:38 tells you what to do. If your not reading the Bible to do what you are told to do....why bother reading it? If you are expecting for the Bible to reiterate Acts: 2:38 every time the topic comes up....you are wrong because the format of the Bible is too abbreviated for that. Not that there are not special circumstances, and not that we know for sure what the outcome of not following Act 2:38 is. Was that enough nots for ya? A person can suddenly believe in Christ at 12:01 and at 12:02 his heart stops....Is he saved? The Bible does not address this. We can believe what we want....I would like to believe Christ would take care of him. But I do not know that....Sure you do! All you need is faith! Does faith mean you don't do anything that Christ and the Apostle told you to do? Ya I do not think that defines faith. What we do know, is that after a person believed in Christ, there was sense of urgency to get to water to be baptized!

“Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Is this a package deal? LOL Where is the instance of salvation? Repentance? Baptism? Belief in Christ? Forgiveness of our sins? Receiving the Holy Spirit? Where is the dividing line? Pass or fail? Can you be saved without repentance? Can you be saved without Baptism? Can you be saved without believing in Christ? Can you be saved without forgiveness of your sins? Can you be saved without receiving the Holy Spirit? Is it a package deal? LOL Are these the relevant questions? Do they really matter? If your not going to be a follower of Christ and do what He says.....none of this matters. What does belief and faith mean? And why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? Luke 6:46

And water immersion baptism....how do people get this idea? The phrase spirit baptism or spiritual baptism does not appear in the Bible. What would it even look like? Pentecost every Sunday!? Is the real point that baptism at all is not necessary?

The Bible does not say spirit baptism or spiritual baptism or that water baptism is not necessary or that baptism is not necessary. If you are going to form your religious beliefs on what the Bible does not say......get with me I have a good imagination, we can come up with some wild stuff! The Bible does not say that Christ and the Apostles pooped. So lets come up with a religion where it is a sin to poop. We have a problem with J's in Bibles, so lets say that Christ is a pilot of a time traveling jet.....we load the jet up with bags of J's and he flies them back to the Old Testament so they can use them. Hey the sky is the limit with imaginary Christianity! Is imaginary Christianity liberal? LOL

 

[Illuminator]

The Catholic Church definitely considered Protestants heretics.

Wrong. The Catholic Church definitely considered Catholics whom became Protestants as heretics. That's because one must be a Catholic FIRST before being a heretic. The Church has no authority to declare any Protestant today as a heretic. In fact, we are instructed to accept with affection all baptized Protestants as Christians. (Paragraph 818)

All those "athenemas" in the Council of Trent, that Protestants hop up and down about, DON'T APPLY TO PROTESTANTS. The Church has no authority to declare any non-Catholic Christian a heretic.
Luther and Calvin were heretics because they were first Catholics, but Lutherans and Calvinists are not heretics, they are our separated brethren.

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1G 13,732.

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278
The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

This desire is NOT a One World Religion conspiracy invented by paranoid anti-Catholic factions.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For the liberals or progressive Christians in this thread, check out this video here:

 

[BreadOfLife]

Name calling reveals a weak argument.

Just an observation based on your arrogant remarks . . .

So what? The question is whether it is true or false.

I already established that MANY things you say aren’t true . . .

In what way do these passages defeat my claim?

They show definitive proof that there IS an office of the Bishopric in the NT.
YOUR position is nothing more than denial.

Why are you arguing semantics with me? From my perspective, you are reading Catholic dogma and Catholic Jargon INTO the text. You asked why there are so many Protestant denominations. Well among the many reasons is the habit of "proof-texting" where a denomination or the Catholic Church itself bases a doctrine on a single verse or even part of a verse. That is what YOU are doing. You found a verse where it mentions "office" and you fill that word with as much Catholic understanding as you can fit in there. But terms like "Bishop" and "Bishopric" are Catholic Jargon words, vocabulary specific to your religion. Peter is unfamiliar with the Catholic role of Bishop, a senior member of the Catholic clergy, usually in charge of a diocese and empowered to confer holy orders.

Peter is speaking about the loss of a fellow Apostle, an official representative of Jesus Christ to the world at large, authorized to testify about what Jesus actually said and what he did and what the Father said about him.

While it is true that an "ἐπίσκοπος" can refer to an overseer, it can also refer to other kinds of authority. In the case of Judas, he was an apostle, not a Bishop, and his main function as an apostle was to speak as a witness to what Jesus said and what he did. A catholic Bishop can NOT do that. No man alive today can take the office assigned to Judas.

WRONG.

Once again – the word “Episkopay” used in Acts 1:20 translates as “Overseership”.
The word “Episkoppos” is used repeatedly in the NT (1 Tim. 3:1, 2, Phil. 1:1) and translates as “Overseer”.

Etymologically, “Episkopos” is where we get the word “Bishop”.
“Episkopos” (Greek.), “Obispo” (Latin), “Bishop” (English).

Jesus told Peter that the Father was teaching him. To suggest that Peter, of necessity, resorted to dice rolling seems unsuitable to his relationship to the Spirit of Truth. Maybe by some miracle the dice ended up where the Holy Spirit wanted, but we have no evidence in the text to suggest it.

WRONG.

We have the promise and the guarantee of Jesus Christ that the Holy Spirit wolf guide the church to ALL TRUTH (John 16:12-15).

Two men were put forth to take the place of Judas. The candidates had to meet specific criteria.

Acts 2:21-22

Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” ​

No witnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus are alive today.

Soooo, you DON’T understand that this criteria applied ONLY to the original group??
They needed somebody who had been there from the beginning because they were building the Church from the ground UP.

Their successors continued building on THEIR foundation (Rev. 21:14).

The symbolism is obvious within the context of the situation into which he was speaking. In this case, Jesus is performing the Jewish Seder, which is a scripted meal. The meal consists of various foods that represent aspects of the Exodus from Egypt. The host picks up one of the elements and tells what the element represents.

The Passover Seder is typically eaten by family and friends and the meal follows a script, whereby the children ask their father a series of questions concerning the elements. For instance, the father might uncover the first piece of unleavened bread and holds it. The children will then ask, "What is the meaning of this matzoh?" Then Father will explain the meaning of the matzoh in terms of the Exodus from Egypt.

Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal together. Jesus played the role of the "father" and gave the appropriate meanings of the elements. But this time, on their last Passover meal together, Jesus changed the meaning of two elements of the Passover meal: the matzoh and one of the wine cups. When Jesus said, "this is my body" he wasn't speaking literally; he was giving a new meaning to the matzoh.

Whereas, in earlier Passover meals, Jesus might have said something like "This is the bread of affliction which our fathers took with them out of Egypt and etc." This time Jesus says, "This is my body" changing the meaning of the bread. The Passover meal is intended to bring to mind events which the Hebrews shared in common. The communion service is intended to bring to mind what all Christians share in common. In other words, the essential significance of the bread and wine is remembrance. 1Corinthians 11:25 The point is to remember what Jesus did on the cross and why it is significant.

Well – you got ONE thing right, Jesus WASS celebrating the Passover meal.
And at the Passover – the Paschal LAMB is to be devoured.
Jesus offers HIMSELF as the Pasha; Lamb.

There is NO other reason why most of His disciples would have abandoned Him in John 6:66. The freaked out when He told them that they had to EAT Him. In other places in the Gospel, Jesus ALWAYS explains Himself when His disciples have a tough time understanding – but NOT here.

He just turned to them and asked, “Do you ALSO want to leave (John 6:67).
No explanation about “symbolism”.

Neither am I. You argue, incorrectly that a common corpus is the reason why many denominations exist. I don't that that follows.

No – arrogance and misinterpretation is why you have so many disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects . . .

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For those who are interested in biblical truth in regards to baptism in Acts 2:38:

I already addressed this verse a while back in my post here in my “Doctrine of Baptisms” thread.

Also, refer to the first post in that thread, as well.


Side Note:

Of course some Liberal Christians will profess that they do not know the certainty of the words of truth on this matter.

But Proverbs 22:21 says,
”That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?”

 

[Illuminator]

Name calling reveals a weak argument.

So what? The question is whether it is true or false.

In what way do these passages defeat my claim?

Let's review the passages presented by BofL that defeats your claim of no successors.
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’;
and ‘His office let another take.’
Read full chapter
Acts 1:20 in all English translations

2 Tim. 2:2, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Read full chapter
2 Timothy 2:2 in all English translations
Jesus > Paul > entrust to faithful men > who will be able to teach others also.
You don't need a calculator to see at least 3 examples of succession.

2 Tim. 1:12-14
12 and therefore I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.[a] 13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; 14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

Read full chapter

I think you are trying to justify not having bishops, clearly an OFFICE found all over the place in the NT.

Why are you arguing semantics with me? From my perspective, you are reading Catholic dogma and Catholic Jargon INTO the text.

From my perspective, you are reading into text what isn't there.

You asked why there are so many Protestant denominations. Well among the many reasons is the habit of "proof-texting" where a denomination or the Catholic Church itself bases a doctrine on a single verse or even part of a verse. That is what YOU are doing. You found a verse where it mentions "office" and you fill that word with as much Catholic understanding as you can fit in there. But terms like "Bishop" and "Bishopric" are Catholic Jargon words, vocabulary specific to your religion. Peter is unfamiliar with the Catholic role of Bishop, a senior member of the Catholic clergy, usually in charge of a diocese and empowered to confer holy orders.

You guys are the ones who demand proof-texting for every single belief and practice, (that the Bible never demands), and when we present proof-text, you call it semantics or jargon words. That makes discussion with you impossible.

Peter is speaking about the loss of a fellow Apostle, an official representative of Jesus Christ to the world at large, authorized to testify about what Jesus actually said and what he did and what the Father said about him.

While it is true that an "ἐπίσκοπος" can refer to an overseer, it can also refer to other kinds of authority. In the case of Judas, he was an apostle, not a Bishop, and his main function as an apostle was to speak as a witness to what Jesus said and what he did. A catholic Bishop can NOT do that. No man alive today can take the office assigned to Judas.

Jesus told Peter that the Father was teaching him. To suggest that Peter, of necessity, resorted to dice rolling seems unsuitable to his relationship to the Spirit of Truth. Maybe by some miracle the dice ended up where the Holy Spirit wanted, but we have no evidence in the text to suggest it.


Two men were put forth to take the place of Judas. The candidates had to meet specific criteria.

Acts 2:21-22

Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” ​

No witnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus are alive today.

Acts 1:20 was about Matthias being a witness to the resurrection, not anyone alive today. By your Bible-twisting nonsense, you would have to rule out Paul, as he didn't witness the resurrection.

The symbolism is obvious within the context of the situation into which he was speaking. In this case, Jesus is performing the Jewish Seder, which is a scripted meal. The meal consists of various foods that represent aspects of the Exodus from Egypt. The host picks up one of the elements and tells what the element represents.

The Passover Seder is typically eaten by family and friends and the meal follows a script, whereby the children ask their father a series of questions concerning the elements. For instance, the father might uncover the first piece of unleavened bread and holds it. The children will then ask, "What is the meaning of this matzoh?" Then Father will explain the meaning of the matzoh in terms of the Exodus from Egypt.

Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal together. Jesus played the role of the "father" and gave the appropriate meanings of the elements. But this time, on their last Passover meal together, Jesus changed the meaning of two elements of the Passover meal: the matzoh and one of the wine cups. When Jesus said, "this is my body" he wasn't speaking literally; he was giving a new meaning to the matzoh.

Whereas, in earlier Passover meals, Jesus might have said something like "This is the bread of affliction which our fathers took with them out of Egypt and etc." This time Jesus says, "This is my body" changing the meaning of the bread. The Passover meal is intended to bring to mind events which the Hebrews shared in common. The communion service is intended to bring to mind what all Christians share in common. In other words, the essential significance of the bread and wine is remembrance. 1Corinthians 11:25 The point is to remember what Jesus did on the cross and why it is significant.

The Passover seder in the Upper Room and the Crucifixion is one and the same sacrifice. Sadly, walls of proof text will not satisfy you.

Within 60 years after Luther did his nail job, there were 200 interpretations of "This is My Body". Your interpretation is an offshoot of an offshoot of one of those 200 interpretations. If you follow your doctrinal history to it's origins, it's less than 500 years old. I'll go with the unanimous and consistent teaching that went unchallenged for over 11 centuries.

Neither am I. You argue, incorrectly that a common corpus is the reason why many denominations exist. I don't that that follows.

There is no common corpus in your flavor of Protestantism. See post #1570 here.

 

[Grailhunter]

The Catholic Church definitely considered Catholics whom became Protestants as heretics. That's because one must be a Catholic FIRST before being a heretic.

It kind of makes sense....but then they killed thousands of people that were not heretics?......or were some of them heretics?.....how did they know....which ones were heretics?......torture.....blood tests.....crystal ball?

up and down about, DON'T APPLY TO PROTESTANTS. The Church has no authority to declare any non-Catholic Christian a heretic.

LOL I am thinking that is a modern belief.

Wrong. The Catholic Church definitely considered Catholics whom became Protestants as heretics. That's because one must be a Catholic FIRST before being a heretic. The Church has no authority to declare any Protestant today as a heretic. In fact, we are instructed to accept with affection all baptized Protestants as Christians. (Paragraph 818)

All those "athenemas" in the Council of Trent, that Protestants hop up and down about, DON'T APPLY TO PROTESTANTS. The Church has no authority to declare any non-Catholic Christian a heretic.
Luther and Calvin were heretics because they were first Catholics, but Lutherans and Calvinists are not heretics, they are our separated brethren.

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1G 13,732.

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278
The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

This desire is NOT a One World Religion conspiracy invented by paranoid anti-Catholic factions.

I would have no problem with a one world religion.....as long as it did not try to force its beliefs on others.....and did not try to take over the world.....Shoot I would be happy with two or three religions.....

Any attempt to control beliefs will always lead to bloodshed. The desire of the Church to work toward one belief was good. The attempt to force it caused horrible things and ruined the Church. The Church's desire to be tied to the rulers of the world who would enforce their beliefs was another problem....One of the reason that early Americans saw the wisdom of separation of church and state.