Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Peterlag]

How does Acts 8:36 work into your theory? Well, it actually destroys your theory. Also, Pet. 3:20–21 destroys your theory. Jesus was baptized in water and we are to follow his example and be like Him if we want to be saved so that fact destroys your theory.

And I LOVE how you cleverly didn't quote in context Acts 10. You mentioned Acts 10:48, which supports your false teaching, but you "accidently" left out the verse before that (10:47) because it doesn't fit into your false teaching. You crack me up. Furthermore, when one looks at historical Christian writings from the 1st century (things that were written before your false teachers wrote words in their diary) we see that water was in fact used for baptism.

So, with that said YOU ARE RIGHT PETER! Water isn't needed for baptism if we throw out the verses in the bible that say water was used for baptism, decide not to follow Jesus example and throw out 1st century Christian history and follow the teachings of your men.

BTW....who are your men? Which Protestant denomination do you belong to that taught you this? Curious Mary

Everyone seems to read right over what I posted again and this time posted it in red. It was there all along and for some reason most skip right over it. And Peter 3:20-21 does not mention water baptism. Acts 10:47 mentions if we should use water and they must have said no because no water was used anywhere in Acts 10. We are not the Christ and so we don't need to do what Jesus did. We don't need to be crucified either.

Water baptism is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established.

 

[Peterlag]

Dear dear Peter,

I know this is a waste of time but I'm going to try one more time.

You said: There is nothing the Catholics teach that is biblical. Nothing.

So I asked you: Who decides that? YOU? Or the men you follow?

Are you going to answer the question? Or should I move on?

I know the Bible well and I have looked at some of the Catholic doctrine and the two do not fit. I can't find anything that they teach that is biblical. So I'm thinking they also must not teach how to walk by the spirit.

 

[Peterlag]

You are repeating yourself, Peter.

I quoted Acts 8:36-38 only to disprove your comment that "There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established." You quoted from Acts 8 in support of your thesis. I quoted from Acts 8 to show you are mistaken.

Acts 8 is the beginning of the Christian church. Why you think it's not I do not understand. Also all you guys have is a few examples like this Acts 8 or 10 when it was just mentioned. What you do not have is any teaching anywhere in the New Testament about water baptism. Nothing at all on it because it does not have anything to do with Christian doctrine.

 

[RedFan]

Acts 8 is the beginning of the Christian church. Why you think it's not I do not understand.

I do think Acts 8 IS describing the beginning of the Christian church. But here is what you said:

a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why . . . In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

You cited from Acts 8:16 in support of your assertion that water baptism is only mentioned in connection with it being unnecessary. Acts 8:36-38 is an instance of water baptism were there is no such connotation. Philip didn't tell the Ethiopian eunuch that water baptism was pointless. Far from it!

There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established.

I'm not sure when you view the Church as being "established," but if it is after the NT was written, then of course the NT won't have any post-establishment references to water baptism, or non-water baptism, or anything at all. We'd need to look at other writings, from the early Church Fathers discussing water baptism. (Do you deny that there are any?)

Or maybe you think the Church was "established" some time during the writing of the epistles. Was it before or after 1 Peter, which discusses water baptism in 3:21-22?

 

[Athanasius377]

Everyone seems to read right over what I posted again and this time posted it in red. It was there all along and for some reason most skip right over it. And Peter 3:20-21 does not mention water baptism. Acts 10:47 mentions if we should use water and they must have said no because no water was used anywhere in Acts 10. We are not the Christ and so we don't need to do what Jesus did. We don't need to be crucified either.

Water baptism is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established.

So what do you do with Matt 28-16:20?


16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016, p. Mt 28:16–20.

I mean, its a direct command for the Lord Jesus, is it not? Also, there is no indication there is a time limit in Jesus's command. And why are we redefining the word to baptize (βαπτίζω)? Your logic in doing so seems to be the english equivalent of redefining the word "to bathe". If I am right every time I tell my kid to go bathe I therefore need to indicate water bathing or she might go dunk herself in sand, mud or toxic waste? Could it be that to bathe, just like to Baptize, carries with it already the notion that the authors and by extension God that water is to be used unless otherwise indicated? If not what in the Grammar and syntax of the text are you appealing to?

And I too am interested in what Fellowship you are a part of.

A.

 

[Marymog]

I know the Bible well and I have looked at some of the Catholic doctrine and the two do not fit. I can't find anything that they teach that is biblical. So I'm thinking they also must not teach how to walk by the spirit.

Got it. So, YOU have decided that nothing The Catholic Church teaches is biblical. I thought maybe you belonged to a Protestant denomination and you were listening to the teachings of other men. I will try to remember this information in the future: Peterlag is right and everyone else is wrong when it comes to biblical interpretation.

 

[Marymog]

Everyone seems to read right over what I posted again and this time posted it in red. It was there all along and for some reason most skip right over it. And Peter 3:20-21 does not mention water baptism. Acts 10:47 mentions if we should use water and they must have said no because no water was used anywhere in Acts 10. We are not the Christ and so we don't need to do what Jesus did. We don't need to be crucified either.

Peter,

Yup, you are right Peter. 1 Peter 3 does not mention water baptism so therefore water was not used to baptize anyone. Gooood job Peter

Yup, Acts 10 NEVER says that they used water in baptism. The only things it says is that Peter said no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. It doesn't say they were baptized with water....just that no one can stand in their way. Even though the surrounding verses say that they received the Holy Spirit and that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, which are all the components of water baptism mentioned elsewhere in Scripture, that specific verse NEVER says they actually got in the water and were baptized with water. Goooood job Peter......

 

[Athanasius377]

Everyone seems to read right over what I posted again and this time posted it in red. It was there all along and for some reason most skip right over it. And Peter 3:20-21 does not mention water baptism. Acts 10:47 mentions if we should use water and they must have said no because no water was used anywhere in Acts 10. We are not the Christ and so we don't need to do what Jesus did. We don't need to be crucified either.

Water baptism is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established.

Wait, why are you pitting one section of scripture against another? @Marymog is correct regarding baptism. Baptism does involve water unless otherwise stated. We would say, and we are on solid ground , that baptism involves water and is usually connected with salvation. Scripture states as much and is confirmed by the writings of the earliest Christians. This understanding of Baptism is one of the few points that the early church fathers are in consensus. So show us from the grammar and syntax of the verses that speaks of baptism where this is not so and is to be regarded to be the norm that baptism does not involve water.

 

[Brakelite]

Acts 8 is the beginning of the Christian church. Why you think it's not I do not understand. Also all you guys have is a few examples like this Acts 8 or 10 when it was just mentioned. What you do not have is any teaching anywhere in the New Testament about water baptism. Nothing at all on it because it does not have anything to do with Christian doctrine.

The letter to the Romans was written sometime between 55 and 60AD. The church by that time had 30 odd years to be established throughout Asia, North Africa, and the middle east. Paul mentions baptism, which by its context cannot be connected to anything other than water baptism, in chapter 6:1-11. He is applying baptism as a metaphor for death and resurrection, and is referencing the act to be partaken of not only by himself, but the whole church.
There are numerous other references to baptism in the NT, such as in 1Cor.1. These references must all, without exception, be in the context of water baptism, as they are officiated and done by the hand of men. The Baptism of the holy Spirit was not done by men, and cannot be so. As John himself declared,
KJV Matthew 3:11
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Only Christ Himself can baptize us with the holy Spirit. Man can only pray that someone may be thus blessed, but it is Jesus Himself sending His own Spirit into man and filling Him with the power and righteousness of the Saviour. We receive the Spirit in a certain measure when we are born again, the baptism however is Christ's response to our total surrender. As much as we surrender to Him, in equal proportion He fills us with His righteousness and power. Therefore there are two baptisms. Water for justification, repentance to salvation. Spirit for sanctification to righteousness and holiness and witness.

 

[Peterlag]

The letter to the Romans was written sometime between 55 and 60AD. The church by that time had 30 odd years to be established throughout Asia, North Africa, and the middle east. Paul mentions baptism, which by its context cannot be connected to anything other than water baptism, in chapter 6:1-11. He is applying baptism as a metaphor for death and resurrection, and is referencing the act to be partaken of not only by himself, but the whole church.
There are numerous other references to baptism in the NT, such as in 1Cor.1. These references must all, without exception, be in the context of water baptism, as they are officiated and done by the hand of men. The Baptism of the holy Spirit was not done by men, and cannot be so. As John himself declared,
KJV Matthew 3:11
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Only Christ Himself can baptize us with the holy Spirit. Man can only pray that someone may be thus blessed, but it is Jesus Himself sending His own Spirit into man and filling Him with the power and righteousness of the Saviour. We receive the Spirit in a certain measure when we are born again, the baptism however is Christ's response to our total surrender. As much as we surrender to Him, in equal proportion He fills us with His righteousness and power. Therefore there are two baptisms. Water for justification, repentance to salvation. Spirit for sanctification to righteousness and holiness and witness.

Only in your mind do you see water in Romans 6:1-11. I see baptized into Jesus Christ. Water is not mentioned anywhere in that chapter.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

 

[Peterlag]

Wait, why are you pitting one section of scripture against another? @Marymog is correct regarding baptism. Baptism does involve water unless otherwise stated. We would say, and we are on solid ground , that baptism involves water and is usually connected with salvation. Scripture states as much and is confirmed by the writings of the earliest Christians. This understanding of Baptism is one of the few points that the early church fathers are in consensus. So show us from the grammar and syntax of the verses that speaks of baptism where this is not so and is to be regarded to be the norm that baptism does not involve water.

Here's one that you asked for. It says baptized into Jesus Christ. Is water another name for Jesus Christ?

Romans 6:3
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

 

[Peterlag]

Got it. So, YOU have decided that nothing The Catholic Church teaches is biblical. I thought maybe you belonged to a Protestant denomination and you were listening to the teachings of other men. I will try to remember this information in the future: Peterlag is right and everyone else is wrong when it comes to biblical interpretation.

Not everyone is wrong and I'm right. But I am right most of the time and the Catholics are never right about anything.

 

[Peterlag]

So what do you do with Matt 28-16:20?


16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016, p. Mt 28:16–20.

I mean, its a direct command for the Lord Jesus, is it not? Also, there is no indication there is a time limit in Jesus's command. And why are we redefining the word to baptize (βαπτίζω)? Your logic in doing so seems to be the english equivalent of redefining the word "to bathe". If I am right every time I tell my kid to go bathe I therefore need to indicate water bathing or she might go dunk herself in sand, mud or toxic waste? Could it be that to bathe, just like to Baptize, carries with it already the notion that the authors and by extension God that water is to be used unless otherwise indicated? If not what in the Grammar and syntax of the text are you appealing to?

And I too am interested in what Fellowship you are a part of.

A.

Matthew is not part of the New Testament. Christians were not yet on the planet. God did not put a paper that says "New Testament" in front of Matthew. Men did that... probably Catholics.

 

[Peterlag]

I do think Acts 8 IS describing the beginning of the Christian church. But here is what you said:


You cited from Acts 8:16 in support of your assertion that water baptism is only mentioned in connection with it being unnecessary. Acts 8:36-38 is an instance of water baptism were there is no such connotation. Philip didn't tell the Ethiopian eunuch that water baptism was pointless. Far from it!


I'm not sure when you view the Church as being "established," but if it is after the NT was written, then of course the NT won't have any post-establishment references to water baptism, or non-water baptism, or anything at all. We'd need to look at other writings, from the early Church Fathers discussing water baptism. (Do you deny that there are any?)

Or maybe you think the Church was "established" some time during the writing of the epistles. Was it before or after 1 Peter, which discusses water baptism in 3:21-22?

I don't write the way you read. And I do not believe it needs to be rewritten. But I will do it just for you.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. (There is a period there and this sentence is done.) Then I start another sentence with a completely different point that in Acts Peter talks about in the name of Jesus Christ. And not water.
And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.”

 

[RedFan]

I don't write the way you read. And I do not believe it needs to be rewritten. But I will do it just for you.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. (There is a period there and this sentence is done.) Then I start another sentence with a completely different point that in Acts Peter talks about in the name of Jesus Christ. And not water.
And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.”

What on earth are you talking about? Nothing is rewritten here. It's the exact same language, with a red commentary in the middle.

Your "this" in the phrase "And this is why" refers to the preceding sentence, drawing a causal connection between the preceding sentence and instructions to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ." The is no such causal connection.

By the way, your point was that water baptism ended at Pentecost:

Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost

This is disproven by the Ethiopian eunuch story in Acts 8.

You're right about one thing, Peter. You don't write the way I read!

 

[Marymog]

Here's one that you asked for. It says baptized into Jesus Christ. Is water another name for Jesus Christ?

Romans 6:3
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Yup, there it is. In red. Just like you say. The word water is not in that verse. Dang....now we have to change 2,000 years of biblical teachings and Christian practice. All these years we have been using water when we baptized, and we weren't supposed too. How embarrassing....

 

[Peterlag]

Yup, there it is. In red. Just like you say. The word water is not in that verse. Dang....now we have to change 2,000 years of biblical teachings and Christian practice. All these years we have been using water when we baptized, and we weren't supposed too. How embarrassing....

Now you see my point. Water can get you wet and it's good for drinking and washing up. Who on earth could have ever thought water could get somebody filled with the spirit of Christ? Here's a bit more if you're interested in 2,000 years of biblical teachings that are not biblical...

Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the Four Gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant. And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

 

[Peterlag]

What on earth are you talking about? Nothing is rewritten here. It's the exact same language, with a red commentary in the middle.

Your "this" in the phrase "And this is why" refers to the preceding sentence, drawing a causal connection between the preceding sentence and instructions to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ." The is no such causal connection.

By the way, your point was that water baptism ended at Pentecost:



This is disproven by the Ethiopian eunuch story in Acts 8.

You're right about one thing, Peter. You don't write the way I read!

You write... "this" in the phrase "And this is why" refers to the preceding sentence, drawing a causal connection between the preceding sentence and instructions to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ."

What you have done is put "time" on it trying to make it look like the first sentence had to be said or written within the same time. You spin and twist better than most.

 

[Brakelite]

Only in your mind do you see water in Romans 6:1-11. I see baptized into Jesus Christ. Water is not mentioned anywhere in that chapter.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

And death is precisely what baptism signifies. Buried, raised again. We cannot crucify and bury ourselves, we must rely on others, just as Christ did. Nor can we raise ourselves from the dead... That takes the Son of God to speak life into our hearts. The baptism of the holy Spirit is the next step in the process. We cannot receive the holy Spirit in its fullness until we have died and been raised.

 

[RedFan]

What you have done is put "time" on it trying to make it look like the first sentence had to be said or written within the same time. You spin and twist better than most.

I don't give a flying f*%k at a rolling doughnut whether you strung those two sentences together in the same second, or same minute, or same hour, or same day! You posted them TOGETHER. Adjacent.