Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[David in NJ]

The satanic church mocks the Eucharist Also. Are you in league with them?

The RCC mocks its own eucharist........?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hi CZ,

It appears you do not know WHY the letters, what we now call Scripture, were written to individual churches. It was because they were having dissention among them, and the "centralized" leadership was exhorting them. Hint: 1 Corinthians 1:10-17.

Those letters, from the centralized leadership, contained instructions on how ALL Christians should act and what to believe. There were even letters (Timothy and Titus) on the expectations of the elders of The Church.

Do you know why the Council of Jerusalem was held? It is because there WAS and still IS "centralization". Scripture and our own Christian history shows this.

So at the Last Supper when Jesus held up bread (Eucharist) and said, "Do this in rememberence of me" He really wasn't interested if we really did it in remembrance of Him?? F A S C I N A T I N G!!!!!

And Jesus would be mad at us if we repeated The Lord's Prayer 3 or 4 or 5 times in a row? Or if we kept praying to Him that a loved one wouldn't die of cancer? REALLY?

Your men have taught you that Jesus is not interested in holy water. Scripture says "and the priest shall take holy water". Should I believe YOUR MEN or Scripture?

Sounds like your theory is that centralized leadership died once the last Apostle died. Where does Scripture support your theory?

I see nothing in scripture about a centralized leadership. Paul, Peter, and James wrote letters. They were NOT part of a centralized leadership or organization. Study and mediated on Paul's letter to the Galatians for further reference.

For instance, consider Galatians 1:6-10

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!​

​

Here the Apostle declares the basis of authority to be the original gospel message. He boldly asserts that anyone who comes preaching another gospel, including himself, is accursed. (Anathema) You see Mary, the truth itself is the ultimate authority. Followers of Christ are NOT being led by men, including Paul, we are being led by the original gospel. We obey THAT.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Great post! Very true. Pay no attention to Marymog, who is clearly in the wrong.

I consider Marymog to be a dear sister in the Lord. Therefore, my only wish is to help her understand the gospel in a more complete way. But we all serve the same Lord and I am leaning on him to guide us both. :)

Thanks for the support.

 

[Jim B]

I consider Marymog to be a dear sister in the Lord. Therefore, my only wish is to help her understand the gospel in a more complete way. But we all serve the same Lord and I am leaning on him to guide us both. :)

Thanks for the support.

I don't think that MaryMog has any interest in understanding the gospel or any other Scriptural teachings. She has clearly been indoctrinated by the teachings of the Catholic denomination to the point of believing that it is the truth, not what the Bible says.

I feel very sad for those RC's who have bought into propaganda of the unHoly Roman Empire. After the replacement of the Old Covenant, with its hierarchical priesthood, ornate rituals, plethora of commandments, etc., you would think that thinking Christians would reject their reinvention. But somehow the Holy Roman Empire managed to reinvent itself. Very, very sad.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I don't think that MaryMog has any interest in understanding the gospel or any other Scriptural teachings. She has clearly been indoctrinated by the teachings of the Catholic denomination to the point of believing that it is the truth, not what the Bible says.

I feel very sad for those RC's who have bought into propaganda of the unHoly Roman Empire. After the replacement of the Old Covenant, with its hierarchical priesthood, ornate rituals, plethora of commandments, etc., you would think that thinking Christians would reject their reinvention. But somehow the Holy Roman Empire managed to reinvent itself. Very, very sad.

I understand Jim. I do. But I am compelled by grace to consider the possibility that Mary obeys Catholic teaching as a means to obey and worship the Lord. Unless I find out otherwise, I will continue to believe that she loves Jesus Christ and is serving him, according to family tradition. I am taking my cues from Romans 14.

5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.​

10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.​

I try to treat everyone the same, with goodness, kindness and grace, but I have a particular affinity to women. I was raised to be protective and supportive of women because, as Peter says

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.​

For the time being, I will continue to believe that Mary is like me, just trying to serve the Lord in the best way she can. I will continue to treat her with kindness and gentleness as with a fellow heir of the grace of life.

I don't think we are at war with each other. We are just having a discussion. That's all.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I see nothing in scripture about a centralized leadership. Paul, Peter, and James wrote letters. They were NOT part of a centralized leadership or organization. Study and mediated on Paul's letter to the Galatians for further reference.

For instance, consider Galatians 1:6-10

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!​

​

Here the Apostle declares the basis of authority to be the original gospel message. He boldly asserts that anyone who comes preaching another gospel, including himself, is accursed. (Anathema) You see Mary, the truth itself is the ultimate authority. Followers of Christ are NOT being led by men, including Paul, we are being led by the original gospel. We obey THAT.

Unfortunately, you close your eyes to all of the verses that DO indicate a centralized leadership in the Early Church.

For starters - the very idea that there was a Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) that had to make a decision for the Church with regard to the Judaizers. Paul didn't appeal to the Gospel alone to address the problem - he appealed the Council of Apostles (Bishops).

In 2 Cor. 5, Paul tells his readers the following about the leaders of the Church:
2 Cor. 5:18-20:
“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given US the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to US the message of reconciliation. So WE are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through US. WE implore YOU on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

To the Thessalonians, he writes:
2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from US."

In BOTH Epistles, he differentiates the “US” and “WE” from his readers.

Jesus gave the Apostles supreme earthly Authority – that WHATEVER they loosed or bound on earth would be loosed and bound in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18), And, at the Last Supper assured them that the Holy Spirit would guide them to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

 

[CadyandZoe]

Unfortunately, you close your eyes to all of the verses that DO indicate a centralized leadership in the Early Church.

For starters - the very idea that there was a Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) that had to make a decision for the Church with regard to the Judaizers. Paul didn't appeal to the Gospel alone to address the problem - he appealed the Council of Apostles (Bishops).

First of all, I showed you from scripture the basis of belief authority is the truth of the Gospel, NOT a person or a council. Paul tells you, If anyone should preach a different gospel, even an angel or Paul himself, let them be anathema. The original gospel message is our authority, not a person or a council.

Secondly, Christians down through history follow Paul's lead with regard to belief and practice. All beliefs and practices should be evaluated against Jesus' original teaching. For this reason, Christians seek out the teaching of the Apostles who were eye witnesses to the word of life and his ministry.

For this reason, John's first letter beings this way:

John 1:1-4

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.​

The basis of our faith is the witness of the original 12 plus Paul. For this reason, Protestants correctly appeal to the writings of Peter, James, John, Matthew, Mark (under Peter), Luke (under Paul) and Paul himself. These men recorded the teaching of Jesus and related it to us. The original teaching has authority over us.

Secondly, contrary to what you might think, Paul did NOT go to Jerusalem in order to receive a decision from a council. He tells you why he went. Primarily, he says, he received the word of life though a revelation, and because it WAS a revelation, he decided to compare his revelation with the original teaching of Christ. And what better resource for that kind of information (as John wrote) than direct eyewitnesses to the teaching and ministry of Jesus.

Paul tells you that he went to see Peter and James in order to compare his teaching with theirs. [Galatians 2:1-6] Paul submitted his gospel to them privately. In Paul's own words he feared that he "had run in vain." The answer came back, no, Paul was not running in vain because "those who were of high reputation . . . contributed nothing to me." In that discussion, Paul explicitly rejects reputation as the basis of authority. "What they were", he says, "makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality." Even here, Paul dismisses the concept of "officialdom" His only interest in the original disciples was their witness, and the question was, "was I running in vain?" That is, how did my alleged revelation from Jesus Christ compare with the eye witness testimony of those who personally walked with Jesus Christ? He tells the Galatians, "those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me."

An examination of Acts 15 will reveal that Peter also received divine revelation concerning Gentile salvation and Peter was able to confirm Paul's understanding of God's will for the Gentiles. Both Peter and Paul compared notes and both of them agreed together. And when James heard their testimony, James also agreed and said so.

Appeals to authority are always appeals to divine revelation, which men recorded for us to read. Sola scriptura -- the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

In 2 Cor. 5, Paul tells his readers the following about the leaders of the Church:
2 Cor. 5:18-20:
“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given US the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to US the message of reconciliation. So WE are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through US. WE implore YOU on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

Once again, the divine revelation carries the weight of authority. Jesus gave Paul the role of making an appeal to the Gentiles to "be reconciled to God." He serves as the minister of reconciliation on the basis that "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ." The message didn't originate with the apostles. Paul says that he was entrusted with the message.

To the Thessalonians, he writes:
2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from US."

In BOTH Epistles, he differentiates the “US” and “WE” from his readers.

Jesus gave the Apostles supreme earthly Authority – that WHATEVER they loosed or bound on earth would be loosed and bound in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18), And, at the Last Supper assured them that the Holy Spirit would guide them to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

I don't see anywhere in the Bible where Jesus delegated his authority to a Church or an Organization. Jesus tells his disciples, "Whatever they loosed or bound on earth" would have already been loosed or bound in heaven. In other words, the role of the apostles is NOT to decided what to loose or what to bind; rather, the role of the apostles is to relay to the followers of Jesus what had already been loosed or bound in heaven. It's not a matter of deciding; it's a matter of identification.

You see Mary, our faith is built on eye witness testimony. Paul's word comes from direct revelation, which he compared to eyewitness testimony and found no disagreement with those who heard from Jesus directly.

As followers of Christ, we ought to follow the lead of our Apostle who compared his teaching with the original to see if he had run in vain.

 

[BreadOfLife]

First of all, I showed you from scripture the basis of belief authority is the truth of the Gospel, NOT a person or a council. Paul tells you, If anyone should preach a different gospel, even an angel or Paul himself, let them be anathema. The original gospel message is our authority, not a person or a council.

Secondly, Christians down through history follow Paul's lead with regard to belief and practice. All beliefs and practices should be evaluated against Jesus' original teaching. For this reason, Christians seek out the teaching of the Apostles who were eye witnesses to the word of life and his ministry.

For this reason, John's first letter beings this way:

John 1:1-4

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.​

The basis of our faith is the witness of the original 12 plus Paul. For this reason, Protestants correctly appeal to the writings of Peter, James, John, Matthew, Mark (under Peter), Luke (under Paul) and Paul himself. These men recorded the teaching of Jesus and related it to us. The original teaching has authority over us.

Secondly, contrary to what you might think, Paul did NOT go to Jerusalem in order to receive a decision from a council. He tells you why he went. Primarily, he says, he received the word of life though a revelation, and because it WAS a revelation, he decided to compare his revelation with the original teaching of Christ. And what better resource for that kind of information (as John wrote) than direct eyewitnesses to the teaching and ministry of Jesus.

Paul tells you that he went to see Peter and James in order to compare his teaching with theirs. [Galatians 2:1-6] Paul submitted his gospel to them privately. In Paul's own words he feared that he "had run in vain." The answer came back, no, Paul was not running in vain because "those who were of high reputation . . . contributed nothing to me." In that discussion, Paul explicitly rejects reputation as the basis of authority. "What they were", he says, "makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality." Even here, Paul dismisses the concept of "officialdom" His only interest in the original disciples was their witness, and the question was, "was I running in vain?" That is, how did my alleged revelation from Jesus Christ compare with the eye witness testimony of those who personally walked with Jesus Christ? He tells the Galatians, "those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me."

An examination of Acts 15 will reveal that Peter also received divine revelation concerning Gentile salvation and Peter was able to confirm Paul's understanding of God's will for the Gentiles. Both Peter and Paul compared notes and both of them agreed together. And when James heard their testimony, James also agreed and said so.

Appeals to authority are always appeals to divine revelation, which men recorded for us to read. Sola scriptura -- the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.


Once again, the divine revelation carries the weight of authority. Jesus gave Paul the role of making an appeal to the Gentiles to "be reconciled to God." He serves as the minister of reconciliation on the basis that "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ." The message didn't originate with the apostles. Paul says that he was entrusted with the message.

I don't see anywhere in the Bible where Jesus delegated his authority to a Church or an Organization. Jesus tells his disciples, "Whatever they loosed or bound on earth" would have already been loosed or bound in heaven. In other words, the role of the apostles is NOT to decided what to loose or what to bind; rather, the role of the apostles is to relay to the followers of Jesus what had already been loosed or bound in heaven. It's not a matter of deciding; it's a matter of identification.

You see Mary, our faith is built on eye witness testimony. Paul's word comes from direct revelation, which he compared to eyewitness testimony and found no disagreement with those who heard from Jesus directly.

As followers of Christ, we ought to follow the lead of our Apostle who compared his teaching with the original to see if he had run in vain.

Your post if full of holes . . .

Let’s start with Paul and the Council of Jerusalem:
Acts 15:1-2
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

If Paul relied SOLELY on “belief authority” – then why the need to check with the other Apostles? His explanation in Gal. 2:1-6 is irrelevant to your argument. Th e fact remains that if this “belief authority” was binding – then there would have been NO need for him to go to Jerusalem.

Secondly – if this “belief authority” is what counts – then explain to me why there are literally tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines based on the SAME Scriptures.

Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on . . .

The 16th century Protestant invention of Sola Scriptura is an untenable fallacy. In short – the very Scripture that YOU claim are our SOLE Authority, never tell us that they are.
HOWEVER, Jesus DID five full and supreme earthly Authority to His CHURCH.
Whatever His Church (Matt 16:16-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23, Luke 10:16).

Finally - YOUR argument that they were simply “relaying” truth STILL renders the Protestant Revolt as something Jesus wouldn’t have approved of. If they were given the power to relay the truth of God and men rebelled against that truth – then YOU have a big problem.

 

[CadyandZoe]

If Paul relied SOLELY on “belief authority” – then why the need to check with the other Apostles?

Let me define "belief authority" here, since you don't seem to know what that is.

Belief authority:
Who or what has the power to tell me what to believe? Answer: Jesus Christ and God the Father. My point, which is well supported, is that belief authority rests solely on those two.

Did Paul seek the council of the Peter, James and John because these men had the authority to tell Paul what to believe? No. Paul sought the council of these men because they were eyewitnesses to what Jesus taught.

You want to maintain that the Catholic Church is authorized to tell us what to believe. This NOT true. Why? Because Peter, James, John and Paul are no longer alive. The scriptures bear witness to the original doctrines delivered to the followers of Jesus. No man alive today can claim that authority.

His explanation in Gal. 2:1-6 is irrelevant to your argument. Th e fact remains that if this “belief authority” was binding – then there would have been NO need for him to go to Jerusalem.

The question centers on the locus of belief authority: does it rest in a person or an idea? Paul claims that belief authority rests in the true Gospel itself, not in a man. Because the authority rests in the truth rather than the man, Paul felt free to confront Peter to his face in the presence of everyone concerning his hypocrisy. (verse 11)

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ​

If authority rested in Peter, then Paul was out of line. But authority didn't rest in Peter, which is why Paul felt free to correct him.

Secondly – if this “belief authority” is what counts – then explain to me why there are literally tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines based on the SAME Scriptures.

I'll answer if you include the RCC as among those who teach different doctrines.

The 16th century Protestant invention of Sola Scriptura is an untenable fallacy.

I continue to maintain that Jesus Christ and God the Father are the only people who have the authority to tell us what to believe. Just because men misuse the written record of divine revelation doesn't mean that the written record itself is unreliable.

You can argue that the Bible is indecipherable, but this would undercut your use of it to defend your beliefs as well as mine.

 

[Jim B]

Your post if full of holes . . .

Let’s start with Paul and the Council of Jerusalem:
Acts 15:1-2
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

If Paul relied SOLELY on “belief authority” – then why the need to check with the other Apostles? His explanation in Gal. 2:1-6 is irrelevant to your argument. Th e fact remains that if this “belief authority” was binding – then there would have been NO need for him to go to Jerusalem.

Secondly – if this “belief authority” is what counts – then explain to me why there are literally tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines based on the SAME Scriptures.

Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on . . .

The 16th century Protestant invention of Sola Scriptura is an untenable fallacy. In short – the very Scripture that YOU claim are our SOLE Authority, never tell us that they are.
HOWEVER, Jesus DID five full and supreme earthly Authority to His CHURCH.
Whatever His Church (Matt 16:16-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23, Luke 10:16).

Finally - YOUR argument that they were simply “relaying” truth STILL renders the Protestant Revolt as something Jesus wouldn’t have approved of. If they were given the power to relay the truth of God and men rebelled against that truth – then YOU have a big problem.

This is clearly RCC propaganda!

Start with the fact that there is no Roman Catholic denomination mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Nor is there any mention of a Pope. Go on from there to the resurrection of the OT separate priesthood and the domination by a small group of people in Rome -- the very thing that Jesus and His disciples rebelled against. (Never forget that it was ROME that killed Jesus!

Martin Luther (and others) saved Christianity by refusing to continue along the corrupt teachings and practices of the murderous Catholic denomination! Thank God that he (and they) did!

 

[Jim B]

Let me define "belief authority" here, since you don't seem to know what that is.

Belief authority:
Who or what has the power to tell me what to believe? Answer: Jesus Christ and God the Father. My point, which is well supported, is that belief authority rests solely on those two.

Did Paul seek the council of the Peter, James and John because these men had the authority to tell Paul what to believe? No. Paul sought the council of these men because they were eyewitnesses to what Jesus taught.

You want to maintain that the Catholic Church is authorized to tell us what to believe. This NOT true. Why? Because Peter, James, John and Paul are no longer alive. The scriptures bear witness to the original doctrines delivered to the followers of Jesus. No man alive today can claim that authority.



The question centers on the locus of belief authority: does it rest in a person or an idea? Paul claims that belief authority rests in the true Gospel itself, not in a man. Because the authority rests in the truth rather than the man, Paul felt free to confront Peter to his face in the presence of everyone concerning his hypocrisy. (verse 11)

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ​

If authority rested in Peter, then Paul was out of line. But authority didn't rest in Peter, which is why Paul felt free to correct him.


I'll answer if you include the RCC as among those who teach different doctrines.

I continue to maintain that Jesus Christ and God the Father are the only people who have the authority to tell us what to believe. Just because men misuse the written record of divine revelation doesn't mean that the written record itself is unreliable.

You can argue that the Bible is indecipherable, but this would undercut your use of it to defend your beliefs as well as mine.

EXCELLENT POST!!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Let me define "belief authority" here, since you don't seem to know what that is.

Belief authority:
Who or what has the power to tell me what to believe? Answer: Jesus Christ and God the Father. My point, which is well supported, is that belief authority rests solely on those two.

Did Paul seek the council of the Peter, James and John because these men had the authority to tell Paul what to believe? No. Paul sought the council of these men because they were eyewitnesses to what Jesus taught.

You want to maintain that the Catholic Church is authorized to tell us what to believe. This NOT true. Why? Because Peter, James, John and Paul are no longer alive. The scriptures bear witness to the original doctrines delivered to the followers of Jesus. No man alive today can claim that authority.

The question centers on the locus of belief authority: does it rest in a person or an idea? Paul claims that belief authority rests in the true Gospel itself, not in a man. Because the authority rests in the truth rather than the man, Paul felt free to confront Peter to his face in the presence of everyone concerning his hypocrisy. (verse 11)

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ​

If authority rested in Peter, then Paul was out of line. But authority didn't rest in Peter, which is why Paul felt free to correct him.

I'll answer if you include the RCC as among those who teach different doctrines.

I continue to maintain that Jesus Christ and God the Father are the only people who have the authority to tell us what to believe. Just because men misuse the written record of divine revelation doesn't mean that the written record itself is unreliable.

You can argue that the Bible is indecipherable, but this would undercut your use of it to defend your beliefs as well as mine.

Apparently, YOU don’t understand how the Church function.
Allow me to educate you . . .

Jesus left us with a Church that has the Authority to TEACH and to Baptize (Matt. 28:19-20). The church doesn’t “Tell” us what to believe – but rather, guides us in our walk with Christ by feeding us with knowledge and wisdom.

Anyway, you have YET to explain your fallacy of “belief Authority” in the light of the fact that there are tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL believe that teach different doctrines. If “Belief Authority” is our standard – why don’t you all believe that teach the SAME things?
God is not the Author of confusion – but of ORDER.

The Catholic Church is the Original Tree from which Protestantism splintered - so any doctrines that differ from it are splinter beliefs. The ONLY reason you refused to answer the question is because you cannot offer a valid explanation for your “Belief Authority” nonsense.

Finally - you don’t seem to understand how Papal Authority works, either. Paul had every right to rebuke Peter because of his behavior. Peter wasn’t TEACJING error – he was behaving badly.

Papal Infallibility and Authority is about TEACHING on faith and morals and administration.
When it comes to his negavior - he's on his own . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is clearly RCC propaganda!

Start with the fact that there is no Roman Catholic denomination mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Nor is there any mention of a Pope. Go on from there to the resurrection of the OT separate priesthood and the domination by a small group of people in Rome -- the very thing that Jesus and His disciples rebelled against. (Never forget that it was ROME that killed Jesus!

Martin Luther (and others) saved Christianity by refusing to continue along the corrupt teachings and practices of the murderous Catholic denomination! Thank God that he (and they) did!

Correct - there is no "Roman Catholic" denominaton - and there never was.
There us the Cathollic Church, which hasa existed since the time of the Apostles.

"Roman" (Latin) simply refers to one of about TWENTY Liturgical Rites that compreise the ONE Catholic Church. There is a Byzantine Rite, Melkite, Maronite, Coptic and about 15 other Rites.

Ignatius of Antioch was a Bishop who lived in the FIRST century. He was a lifelong student of the Apostle John and was ordained by Peter. He wrote the following on the way to his martyrdom in Rom at the beginning of the 2nd century:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, THERE IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

Ummmm, what Church does THAT sound like??

Jesus and the Apostles built the Cathlic Church.
MEN invented yourt "denominations"

 

[amigo de christo]

JESUS left us with a church all right . And it aint what lots of men have tried to make it be either .
From the cradle to the grave we have had denominations appear which claim to be the CHURCH
yet when inspected and tested , OOPS it fell way short of that mark . Jus saying .

 

[Jim B]

JESUS left us with a church all right . And it aint what lots of men have tried to make it be either .
From the cradle to the grave we have had denominations appear which claim to be the CHURCH
yet when inspected and tested , OOPS it fell way short of that mark . Jus saying .

You're not "jus saying" anything! The Biblical definition of the church is the body of Christ. Your distortions are contrary to God's word, and as usual, are mean-spirited and vindictive. Why do you call yourself a Christian and oppose the church and Christians?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

Some Christians hold to the belief that Spirit baptism replaces water baptism. I recently held to this belief but I reverted back to my old position that we are to water baptize others and be water baptized.

Spirit baptism is what saves us. Water Baptism is our public declaration we have been saved!

 

[Jim B]

I am reading about baptism in "After Jesus Before Christianity" by Eric Vearncombe that baptism was actually a variation of public bathing, much like bread and wine was a communal meal. In other words, it was not an individual act of burial/resurrection or spiritual purification,, but rather a sharing of physical cleansing.

 

[DJT_47]

The Church, broadly speaking, consists of all the followers of Christ, whom God is saving and training by his Holy Spirit.

The RCC is not a Church; rather, the RCC is a but an organization founded for a religious purpose.

Contrary to the RCC, Jesus did not come to start a religion or a religious organization.

Therefore, the RCC is not the church.

Just for clarification, the church is not the "followers of Christ", but rather is comprised of those believers who have been baptized into his body which is the church (Acts 2:38-47). Those in the church are his, and are owned by him since he "purchased it with his own blood", Acts 20:28.

 

[DJT_47]

Spirit baptism is what saves us. Water Baptism is our public declaration we have been saved!

Baptism saves us according to 1 Peter 3:20-1. It's NOT a public declaration of anything. That's man contrived nonsense not found in the bible. In Acts 8, Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in the middle of nowhere in front of no one. Who was his baptism a "public declaration" to?

 

[Titus]

Hmmmm.....What man taught you that history? The Church didn't kill people for ready Scripture. That is a complete lie. You should learn Christian history instead of giving your opinion about it.I am Catholic and no one has tried to kill me for reading the bible for myself. As a matter of fact the church I go to has bible study soooooooooo whatever man taught you that lie....you can put it to rest.

Who taught you this garbage

The Catholic church forbidden the regular people from reading or studying the Holy Bible on their own. This rule within the Catholic church only increased into the Middle Ages and after, which also included the restriction on a person translating the Holy Scriptures into their native tongue. This later turned out to having them become burned if they possessed the Scriptures.

Proof?

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned..."

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to "...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence." For this "heresy" Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council's decree "Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River."

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Catholic church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

I do have another source for how the Bible was restricted by the Catholic Church involving others.
In this forum source, they provide Catholic source quotes, as well.

Source: