What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[GodsGrace]

The Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God.
Peter was the firt earthly vicar of Christ.

a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if He did not pit him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him the Servant of the Servants of God.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him the Servant of the Servants of God.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not the Servant of the Servants of God??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not the Servant of the Servants of God??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not the Servant of the Servants of God??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not the Servant of the Servants of God??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if He was not om charge??

Peter's name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

Any intelligent person who considers themselves to be a Chrisatian would NOT go to Wikippedia for theor Theology.

SOME of what they report - on ANY subject is correct but you need discerning mind to cut through the rubbish.
Unfortunately, someone as gullible as YOU can't discern . . .

I said YOU should use Wikipedia...
I DID NOT say that I use it.

As to the above....
I never said Peter was not at the top of the list...
I said
HE WAS NOT THE FIRST POPE.....
THE FIRST

You don't know about this either?
What kind of Catholic are you anyway?

 

[GodsGrace]

That's hilarious! View attachment 48533



That's how the catholcs roll.

Don't feel bad because the so called "reformers" be telling lies too.

The catholics and the reformers have one thing in common... they don't go by what the Lord says in His Word

I have to agree with you.
And I love that emoji !

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'm not following the argument you are making. Few would doubt Peter's primacy among the apostles. Your case for that is convincing. But what has that to do with the papacy?

Ummmm, what HASN'T that got to do with the Papascy??

 

[RedFan]

Ummmm, what HASN'T that got to do with the Papascy??

Is this a trick question? As best I can tell, when it comes to Peter’s passing on the Keys to the Kingdom to a single successor in Rome, and that successor to the next, and so on in an unbroken line of Roman bishops, the required assumptions are as follows:

1. Jesus gave Peter preeminent authority not shared by the other apostles (e.g., John 20:22-23). [I already conceded this one.]

2. Jesus intended Peter’s preeminent authority to be passed on after Peter’s death, i.e., it was intended as an assignable authority. (No recorded words of Jesus, apocryphal or not, express such an intention.)

3. The means by which Peter’s authority got assigned – to one man only – was initially by Peter’s own selection of a successor, and later by wider vote (such as the election of Matthias as recounted in Acts 1:24-26).

4. Like Paul before him, Peter went to Rome to end his days in a church he did not found. But because of his preeminence, Peter – not Paul – became Rome’s bishop (unlike in Jerusalem, where James was leader of the church while Peter was active there).

5. Of all the bishops that Peter may have appointed in his travels (e.g., Antioch), the one man that he assigned his “keys” to was the bishop he appointed in Rome, generally assumed to be Linus, per John Chrysostum’s Homily 10 on Second Timothy (“This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”), but possibly Clement (per the Epistle of Clement to James).

6. Peter’s authority not only could be assigned to another, but the assignee himself could further assign that authority to a person of his choosing, i.e., the “keys” are assignable by any subsequent recipient of those keys.

7. Eventually – likely to fill a gap when, inevitably, no one had been appointed as a successor before the incumbent died – the Bishop of Rome was installed not by his immediate predecessor but by acclamation of the Christian community in Rome, or by consensus or vote of clergy or of other bishops (in Italy, not worldwide) – all with the same validity as if appointed by his immediate predecessor.

Any one of these falls, and the papacy falls! Maybe you have an answer for all seven. So far you've addressed only #1.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I said YOU should use Wikipedia...
I DID NOT say that I use it.

WHY would I do that if I already to you NOT to use it for theological purposes??
That doesn't make ANY sense . . .

As to the above....
I never said Peter was not at the top of the list...
I said
HE WAS NOT THE FIRST POPE.....
THE FIRST

You don't know about this either?
What kind of Catholic are you anyway?

Peter absolutely was the first Pope - although "Pope" is not an official title.

It simply means "Papa" (father). It's a term of endearment.

In the 3nd century, in his master work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus lists ALL of the Bishops of Rome from Peter to his day.

Eminent Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelley enumerates ALL of the Popes – starting with Peter in his book, Oxford Dictionary of Popes.
The onus us in YOU to disprove it

YOU should have learned from Joseph Goebbels that just because you repeat a lie, that doesn't make it true . . .. . .

 

[Taken]

Thank you for inadvertentlly giving a perfect example of why salvation is a LIFELONG pocess and NOT a one-time, slam-dunk event.

No need to be thankful for what I did not say, and what I did say that you obviously do NOT comprehend.

No one receives Salvation until a bodily DEATH occurs.

They who are Converted, have received their Salvation immediately (NOT A LIFE LONG PROCESS) But After Submitting and surrendering their Body by agreeing to be Crucified WITH Christ.
They ARE…IN Christ…and Christ is IN Them…
A once and forever agreement to forever Be with the Lord God and He forever Be with that individual.
THEY shall be Raised Up Bodily Glorified, BY the Lord. THEY shall accompany the Lord during His 1,000 year Reign.

1 Thes 4:
[15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

In your case…According to you, “earning” “working for” or whatever you call it…during you whole lifetime…IS Not Being IN Christ, Rather being IN Jesus, As long as you continue Believing to the day of your Bodily Death, THEN shall you be Saved.
IN that case, you shall be Raised UP Bodily Glorified, By God, After Jesus’ 1,000 yr Reign.

1 Thes 4:
[14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Because Scripture alludes to it when ther Angel calls Mary, Krcharitomrnr (Luke 1:28).
This title is defined as,“ completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace, which is a perfect passive participle, indicating a completed action with a PERMANENT result.” [/QUOTE]

Regarding Elijah and Enoch…

Scripture flat out says…
2 Kings 2:
[11] And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

it neither says, IF Elijah died, IF Elijah was alive, IF Only Elijah’s soul (which every mans soul has the SAME IDENTIFYING NAME as a mans BODY) Body’s come from dust, (Body's return to dust) souls come from Heaven and (IF saved, return to Heaven).

Gen 5:
[23] And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
[24] And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Enoch lived 365 years, thereafter God TOOK Him. God TAKES with Him the saved souls departed out of Dead Body’s (which such body’s return to Dust from whence they came.)

God made an exception with MAry.

THAT belief IS Catholic Doctrine…found No where In Christ Jesus’ Gospel or Doctrine.

God can and DOES make exceptions, as in the case of Enoch and Elijah, who didn't die

Fallacy.
Scripture does not say Elijah did not die.
Scripture does not say Enoch did not die.

- even though Heb. 9:27 says that ALL men die.

Which is contrary to your statement.
Disagree Scripture contradicts Scripture.

Thank you for inadvertentlly giving a perfect example of why salvation is a LIFELONG pocess

For some (NOT IN Christ, it can be a life long process) … which you claim applies to you.

and NOT a one-time, slam-dunk event.

For some (IN CHRIST), it is a ONE TIME EVENT….which is what Does apply to me.

Seems I have accepted the Lords Word of His “surety”…of KEEPING my Salvation, by, through, of His Power.

Heb 7:
[22] By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

John 15: applies to me
[4] Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
[7] If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.


And you have been duped into believing YOU have salvation, BEFORE you testified of Belief…and Keep your supposed salvation by Doing works.

Not the Lords teaching.

 

[Taken]

Where is Scriptural evidence…
Peter was a Bishop?
Peter was in Rome?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Is this a trick question? As best I can tell, when it comes to Peter’s passing on the Keys to the Kingdom to a single successor in Rome, and that successor to the next, and so on in an unbroken line of Roman bishops, the required assumptions are as follows:

1. Jesus gave Peter preeminent authority not shared by the other apostles (e.g., John 20:22-23). [I already conceded this one.]

2. Jesus intended Peter’s preeminent authority to be passed on after Peter’s death, i.e., it was intended as an assignable authority. (No recorded words of Jesus, apocryphal or not, express such an intention.)

First of all, John tells us that NOT everything Jesus said and did was written doen (John 21:25).

In Acts 1:20 Peter is speaking while they are electing a successor for Judas. Peter says:
“Let another take his office” (Acts 1:20).

The Greek word used here for “office” is “Episkopay” (Bishopric), thus illustrating that the position of “Bishop” was a successive office.

3. The means by which Peter’s authority got assigned – to one man only – was initially by Peter’s own selection of a successor, and later by wider vote (such as the election of Matthias as recounted in Acts 1:24-26).

Being a matter of discipline and not doctrine – this is perfectly fine.

4. Like Paul before him, Peter went to Rome to end his days in a church he did not found. But because of his preeminence, Peter – not Paul – became Rome’s bishop (unlike in Jerusalem, where James was leader of the church while Peter was active there).

Which means Peter was the leader.

5. Of all the bishops that Peter may have appointed in his travels (e.g., Antioch), the one man that he assigned his “keys” to was the bishop he appointed in Rome, generally assumed to be Linus, per John Chrysostum’s Homily 10 on Second Timothy (“This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”), but possibly Clement (per the Epistle of Clement to James).

This fact alone should tell you that the Bishop of Rome was to be in charge.

6. Peter’s authority not only could be assigned to another, but the assignee himself could further assign that authority to a person of his choosing, i.e., the “keys” are assignable by any subsequent recipient of those keys.

Yes, Linus succeeded Peter and Clement succeeded Linus and so on . . .

To this day, ANY Bishop from around the world can be appointed to succeed the Bishop of Rome.

7. Eventually – likely to fill a gap when, inevitably, no one had been appointed as a successor before the incumbent died – the Bishop of Rome was installed not by his immediate predecessor but by acclamation of the Christian community in Rome, or by consensus or vote of clergy or of other bishops (in Italy, not worldwide) – all with the same validity as if appointed by his immediate predecessor.

Any one of these falls, and the papacy falls! Maybe you have an answer for all seven. So far you've addressed only #1.

Once again – this is a matter of DISCIPINE – not FOCTRINE and is subject to change.

James was eventually killed and succeeded by Cleopas. Peter, by Evodus in Antioch, who was succeeded by Ignatius.

 

[GodsGrace]

WHY would I do that if I already to you NOT to use it for theological purposes??
That doesn't make ANY sense . . .

Peter absolutely was the first Pope - although "Pope" is not an official title.

It simply means "Papa" (father). It's a term of endearment.

In the 3nd century, in his master work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus lists ALL of the Bishops of Rome from Peter to his day.

Eminent Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelley enumerates ALL of the Popes – starting with Peter in his book, Oxford Dictionary of Popes.
The onus us in YOU to disprove it

YOU should have learned from Joseph Goebbels that just because you repeat a lie, that doesn't make it true . . .. . .

Your last line prevents me from responding to you.

But I'll repeat this:

Peter was NOT
THE FIRST POPE.

I think @RedFan might have an idea of what I'm speaking of.
BUT
YOU certainly do not.

 

[Taken]

I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Persons always had the opportunity to be saved...Romans 1: 19-20

BEFORE Jesus…YES, a persons could would be saved…….
“IF” they believed at the moment of their bodily death.
Salvation of ones soul AND quickening (born again spirit) IS ONLY “given” AFTER a Body Death.

IOW…A new creature, a restored soul, a new spirit…does not occur until the OLD is passed away.

1 Cor 15:
[36] Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

Not sure what bodily death has to do with this.

The natural MUST DIE, before the spiritual can become BORN.

Do you mean we don't have to wait for our glorified bodies?
We do become saved right now,

We still wait for our OWN Glorified bodies…
Those who are crucified with Christ Jesus…
ARE ACCOUNTED bodily dead.
Those who are crucified with Christ Jesus…
ARE ACCOUNTED risen UP IN HIS Glorified body….
IN effect, you have fulfilled the ONE TIME Bodily. Death requirement … and your crucified body, is washed, is sanctified (set apart unto the Lord God ) that only He can redeem you, raise you in your glorified body.
IN EFFECT you ARE Prepared for any Year, day, MOMENT the Lord calls your “soul and spirit” UP to Him…Keeping your soul and spirit in peace, rest, comfort…until the day He raises up your body in it’s OwN glory.

We do experience a part of heaven right now,
If this is what you mean, then, yes, it's scriptural.
Ephesians 2:6-7

We can (saved or not) experience the lower heavens…ie…observing what our sight can see, as well as travel in the clouds.

Our FULL experience of Heaven…shall be once our body is raised, our saved soul and quicken spirit returned to our risen body…
The Earth renewed…AND…the barrier between heaven and earth is opened…
Which is WHEN, as it is in Heaven SO SHALL it be on earth…One Lord God Almighty communing with His People, who can THEN SEE Him, AS He IS…Spirit.

We are not kept by our own power.
Pelagius thought this.
We can do nothing on our own, just as Jesus taught. John 15:1-6

Don’t know Pelagius…But know Jesus….
Without Christ Jesus, we can not Believe, be Forgiven, Be soul saved, Be born again, Be Kept unto God….Agree.

I also know that when we become born again we do not lose our free will

True regarding…your natural LIFE, you can marry, or not, live where ever, eat what ever,
Play sports, watch movies, dance, or not…

and so it is possible to lose our faith or decide to walk away from it, for whatever reason.

If a believer…sure you can walk away.
IF CONVERTED…no you can not walks away.

God does not force us to stay with Him against our will.

You calling ON the Lord to CONFESS with your word, your True Heartful Belief…
IS Expressly you exercising YOUR FREEWILL…which BTW comes with a WARNING to be diligent, be sure…
BECAUSE IT IS FOR EVER.

2 Pet 1:
[10] Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

IF you make a FALSE confession…ya think you have FOOLED God, that He is NOT ALL KNOWING…If you confess belief and don’t MEAN it …at that moment…2, 10 years Later….WHAT DID YOU DO? LIED TO GOD.
Think God will SAVE you…give you a new spirit AND THEN, say gee, you fooled me…and then UNSAVE your soul and Give you back your Old natural spirit??

Calling on the Lord God…and Confessing IS a ONE TIME EVENT…of a TRUE Heartful Confession…ONCE and FOREVER..

It is NOT a FORCE…it is precisely YOU exercising your own free will.

That's a bit too calvinistic for me.

I don’t study that denomination, to know or care what they believe.

Convert just means to change from one thing to another thing.
I THINK we agree.

But the change is from NOT being born again TO being born again.

No…the CHANGE is being naturally born of a mans SEED, to becoming supernaturally born again of Gods SEED.

Yes, well, like I said - it SHOULD mean that.
But if you need an extra word, as I've already stated, then it's OK because many call themselves Christian that are not.
BUT
IF one is FOLLOWING the gospel of Jesus Christ, I'd have to say that they are a Christian person.
At what point in their learning and following they are is not for us to decide.

Plenty of people are WITHOUT the Lord God.
Plenty of people are WITH the Lord God.
Few of people are WITHIN the Lord God.

I decide for MYSELF, by what I chose, thus that and the consequences thereof apply to me.

I merely have “indications” what applies to specific others…by what they SAY and DO.

God Bless you,

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Truther]

I certainly WAS Baptized “in the name of” (by the AUTHORITY of) Jesus Christ per His explcit instructions n Matt. 28:19.

Fake news. You were baptized in the titles like the rest of the Catholics. You didn’t even repent first. You have to be rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.

 

[RedFan]

James was eventually killed and succeeded by Cleopas. Peter, by Evodus in Antioch, who was succeeded by Ignatius

So why isn't Evodus the second Pope and Ignatius the third?

 

[Truther]

There is not a SINGLE Biblical example with the words of Baptism being spoken over someone being Baptized.
For that – we have to go directly to Jesus’s instructions in Matt 28:18.

As I said before – YOU need to obey the Master . . .

I see, you are saying that the command of being baptized in the name of the Lord is the equivalent of being baptized in the title son. Now that is really intelligent.
Am I not correct, son?

 

[RedFan]

First of all, John tells us that NOT everything Jesus said and did was written doen (John 21:25).

Correct. But that doesn't mean He said anything about Peter's successors.

In Acts 1:20 Peter is speaking while they are electing a successor for Judas. Peter says:
“Let another take his office” (Acts 1:20).

The Greek word used here for “office” is “Episkopay” (Bishopric), thus illustrating that the position of “Bishop” was a successive office.

If Judas had an "office" that Peter wanted filled after Judas' death -- with Peter misquoting Ps. 69:25 (I'll give him a pass here, since this was pre-Pentecost)-- so be it. This proves nothing more than that the number 12 was, in Peter's mind at least, the right number of apostles. I don't doubt that all of the apostles appointed successors, lots of them. But that doesn't mean Peter's appointee had any primacy over the other appointees.

Being a matter of discipline and not doctrine – this is perfectly fine.

If Peter's appointed successors are matters of discipline rather than doctrine, then the presumed primacy of Peter's successors (in Rome, or Antioch or wherever) is not doctrine either.

Which means Peter was the leader.

Nonsense. There is no basis to presume that Peter was the "leader" in Rome rather than Paul -- or even that there was any need for either one of them to be a leader over the other. James's leadership in Jerusalem while Peter was active there proves that two apostles in the same city, one of whom is Peter, demonstrates no necessary Petrine leadership.

This fact alone should tell you that the Bishop of Rome was to be in charge.

How so? The succession of Roman bishops tells us nothing about primacy, any more than the succession of Antiochene bishops does.

To this day, ANY Bishop from around the world can be appointed to succeed the Bishop of Rome.

So how does that say anything about the Roman bishop's primacy over all other bishops? It doesn't.

Let's keep our eye on the ball here. The issue is the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Your argument for such primacy must prove that Peter's primacy (a) was assignable at all, and if it was assignable, (b) was handed down to Linus (NOT to Evodus), who handed it off to Clement (NOT to Ignatius), who handed it off to . . . Francis eventually. A documented unbroken line of bishops in a given city is not the issue,and doesn't help establish either (a) or (b).

 

[BreadOfLife]

So why isn't Evodus the second Pope and Ignatius the third?

Evodius was NOT the 2nf Pope, not Ignatius the 3rd. They succeeded Peter’s See in Antioch.

The Primary See was Rome, where Peter eventually presided and was martyred.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I see, you are saying that the command of being baptized in the name of the Lord is the equivalent of being baptized in the title son. Now that is really intelligent.
Am I not correct, son?

NOPE.

You’re stuck on personal names because you lack the ability to understand what “in the bane of” means.

I’ve educated you on this point repeatedly – even listing MANY scholarly sources on the matter - yet you still fail to understand . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your last line prevents me from responding to you.

But I'll repeat this:

Peter was NOT
THE FIRST POPE.

You can repeat it ALL day long and you’ll STILL be wrong.
Repeating a LIE doesn’t make you right.

The onus is on YOU to prove this nonsense . . .

I think @RedFan might have an idea of what I'm speaking of.
BUT
YOU certainly do not.

Which means that TWO people are wrong instead of just ONE . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Fake news. You were baptized in the titles like the rest of the Catholics. You didn’t even repent first. You have to be rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.

There’s NO such thing as “RE-Baptism” in Christ.

YOU just got wet the second time around . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No need to be thankful for what I did not say, and what I did say that you obviously do NOT comprehend.

No one receives Salvation until a bodily DEATH occurs.

They who are Converted, have received their Salvation immediately (NOT A LIFE LONG PROCESS) But After Submitting and surrendering their Body by agreeing to be Crucified WITH Christ.
They ARE…IN Christ…and Christ is IN Them…
A once and forever agreement to forever Be with the Lord God and He forever Be with that individual.
THEY shall be Raised Up Bodily Glorified, BY the Lord. THEY shall accompany the Lord during His 1,000 year Reign.

1 Thes 4:
[15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

In your case…According to you, “earning” “working for” or whatever you call it…during you whole lifetime…IS Not Being IN Christ, Rather being IN Jesus, As long as you continue Believing to the day of your Bodily Death, THEN shall you be Saved.
IN that case, you shall be Raised UP Bodily Glorified, By God, After Jesus’ 1,000 yr Reign.

1 Thes 4:
[14] For IF WE BELIEVE that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

The Bible tells us explicitly that we can LOSE our salvation by our OWN doing. (Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, Matt. 25:31–46, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:22, 1 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 10:12, 1 Tim. 4:1, 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6, Heb. 3:12-14, Heb. 6:4-6, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Pet. 2:20-21, 2 Pet. 3:17, 1 John 2:24, 1 John 5:13, Rev. 3:5, Rev. 22:19)

The Biblical “guarantees” of eternal security always come with a caveat – IF you believe, IF you follow, IF you endure, etc.

Regarding Elijah and Enoch…
Scripture flat out says…
2 Kings 2:
[11] And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

it neither says, IF Elijah died, IF Elijah was alive, IF Only Elijah’s soul (which every mans soul has the SAME IDENTIFYING NAME as a mans BODY) Body’s come from dust, (Body's return to dust) souls come from Heaven and (IF saved, return to Heaven).

Gen 5:
[23] And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
[24] And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Enoch lived 365 years, thereafter God TOOK Him. God TAKES with Him the saved souls departed out of Dead Body’s (which such body’s return to Dust from whence they came.)

Elijah was ALIVE physically with at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-8).

He is NOT recorded as having died – but assumed into the heavens by the power of God.
THAT belief IS Catholic Doctrine…found No where In Christ Jesus’ Gospel or Doctrine.

THAT belief IS Catholic Doctrine…found No where In Christ Jesus’ Gospel or Doctrine.

And so is Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Eternal Security, Limited Atonement, etc.

God can and DOES make exceptions, as in the case of Enoch and Elijah, who didn't die

Fallacy.
Scripture does not say Elijah did not die.
Scripture does not say Enoch did not die.

Which is contrary to your statement.
Disagree Scripture contradicts Scripture.

WRONG.
I explicitly said that God can and DOES make exceptions.

Here are 2 more – Lazarus and Jairus’s Daughter. They were BOT dead and brought BACK to life.
EXCEPTIONS to the rule . . .

For some (NOT IN Christ, it can be a life long process) … which you claim applies to you.
Fallacy.
Scripture does not say Elijah did not die.
Scripture does not say Enoch did not die.

It says that BOTH of them were taken up by God - and never even HINTS at their deaths.

Jesus was raised in the Jewish Faith and practiced and believed in the truths of that faith. The fact that Elijah did NOT die was a belief of Judaism. The Pharisees even asked John the Baptist if HE was Elijah (John 1:21).

You’ll have do better than simply denying this fact . . .

For some (IN CHRIST), it is a ONE TIME EVENT….which is what Does apply to me.

Seems I have accepted the Lords Word of His “surety”…of KEEPING my Salvation, by, through, of His Power.

Then I suggest you take a good, hard look at the following verses that ASSURE you that you can LOSE your security . . .

(Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, Matt. 25:31–46, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:22, 1 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 10:12, 1 Tim. 4:1, 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6, Heb. 3:12-14, Heb. 6:4-6, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Pet. 2:20-21, 2 Pet. 3:17, 1 John 2:24, 1 John 5:13, Rev. 3:5, Rev. 22:19)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Correct. But that doesn't mean He said anything about Peter's successors.

No – but it disproves Sola Scriptura and the fallacy that everything in written down explicitly . . .

If Judas had an "office" that Peter wanted filled after Judas' death -- with Peter misquoting Ps. 69:25 (I'll give him a pass here, since this was pre-Pentecost)-- so be it.

So, you actually believe that Scripture is WRONG here??

Can you show me another verse of Scripture where somebody misquotes another verse while fulfilling a prophecy?

This proves nothing more than that the number 12 was, in Peter's mind at least, the right number of apostles. I don't doubt that all of the apostles appointed successors, lots of them. But that doesn't mean Peter's appointee had any primacy over the other appointees.

Peter’s successor as Bishop of Rome (Pope) was Linus, who was succeeded by Clement.

Clement The Letter of Clement (93AD) was written while the Apostle John was still alive. In this letter, Clement presides over decisions for the Church at Corinth – who had its own Bishop. This is a clear-cut case of Papa; Primacy.

If Peter's appointed successors are matters of discipline rather than doctrine, then the presumed primacy of Peter's successors (in Rome, or Antioch or wherever) is not doctrine either.

Ummmm, that’s NOT what I said.
I said that the method of appointing Bishops was a matter of discipline.

Don’t misrepresent what I said . . .

Nonsense. There is no basis to presume that Peter was the "leader" in Rome rather than Paul -- or even that there was any need for either one of them to be a leader over the other. James's leadership in Jerusalem while Peter was active there proves that two apostles in the same city, one of whom is Peter, demonstrates no necessary Petrine leadership.

James had no Primacy over Peter.

First of all – they ALL made the decision about the Judaizers at the Council of Jerusalem – and Peter spoke FIRST on the matter. James concurred with the words of Peter. He didn’t make the decision for the whole group.

How so? The succession of Roman bishops tells us nothing about primacy, any more than the succession of Antiochene bishops does.

As I stated before – the Letter of Clement, along with the testimonies of the Early Church Fathers ALL supports the idea of Petrine Primacy.

So how does that say anything about the Roman bishop's primacy over all other bishops? It doesn't.

Let's keep our eye on the ball here. The issue is the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Your argument for such primacy must prove that Peter's primacy (a) was assignable at all, and if it was assignable, (b) was handed down to Linus (NOT to Evodus), who handed it off to Clement (NOT to Ignatius), who handed it off to . . . Francis eventually. A documented unbroken line of bishops in a given city is not the issue,and doesn't help establish either (a) or (b).

HUH??

I said that ANY Bishop in the world can be elected to the Papacy – IN ROME.
They don’t have to be FROM Rome – but that is where they will be from that point forward.

Evodius and Ignatius weren’t appointed to be Bishop of Rome – but of Antioch.