No, they were baptized in the name of Jesus CHRIST. You left out a word. Yes, I know you were referring to the same person, but since you won't allow Catholics, Orthodox and other Protestants to get away with the slightest deviation from or substitute for "Jesus Christ" when baptizing, I thought I'd point point your "error." :)
What is the purpose of infant baptism?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The church of Acts 2 baptized in the name of Jesus.
"Father" and "Holy Ghost" were never eluded to at all, anywhere in Acts.
They must have realized somehow that the name of the son per Matt 28:189 was "Jesus".
The GO has not figured it out, so they were not of the 3000 that were baptized in the name of Jesus(only) at Pentecost.
Which brings up a question: would baptizing in the name of "Jesus" or in the name of "Christ" -- but not both -- be valid?
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Christ is not a name but a description of a person’s role. Jesus Christ is Jesus the Christ.
They don’t say the name of Jesus when they baptize. They say son. The name of Jesus is not son.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Just as I said. You reject the understanding of "born again" as expressed by Justin Martyr and supplanted it with man made traditions. You can't even admit Justin Martyr was a Christian. To you, a heretic??? Make up your mind, and stop identifying with the early church you are divorced from.
Heretic or Christian? You don't answer pointed questions, but quick to complain about personal accusations when you have no answer.
Saint Justin Martyr | Biography, Writings, Legacy, & Facts | Britannica
Saint Justin Martyr, one of the most important of the Greek philosopher-Apologists in the early Christian church. His writings represent one of the first positive encounters of Christian revelation with Greek philosophy and laid the basis for a theology of history.
www.britannica.com
I'd have to agree with @Truther that organizations have failed.
Not sure why....in the CC I hear and would agree, that it's a great washing out of those that go
to church just for show, and the remnant will be left. Attendance is drastically low.
This is true also of Protestant denomnations.
However, the answer cannot be individual doctrine.....
Not absolutely sure what Truther believes, but if he believes we can each believe our own doctrine - made up by ourselves I guess - that will be the downfall of Christianity,,,which is already in trouble.
I do think the reformation was necessary....
but the result is horrendous.
Why follow my organition off a cliff when I can join this group?...
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
The Principle of Authority in Religion
The question of spiritual authority plagues (or ought to plague) all religions. In the first place, the problem of authority causes intelligent observers to reject immediately the reliability of any religion which does not claim to be revealed by God. If we confine ourselves, then, to those religions which do claim to be revealed by God, we run into a second problem with authority. Even if the initiating Revelation is credible—that is, attested by signs and wonders that can come only from God—how do we know that the religion or church which claims to carry on this revelation can be trusted to elucidate and interpret it correctly over time?
The question of authority lies at the very core of religious belief because, first, we cannot know much about God and His Plan unless He reveals it and, second, we cannot intelligently accept as authentic any custodian of this Revelation unless it can establish its claim to preserve, explicate and interpret the Revelation without error over time. Yes, I know that many people are slipshod in their methods, accepting all sorts of alleged authority without raising intelligent questions. Nonetheless, when put to the test, the question of this authority is paramount.
This is so true that it would be ridiculous to suppose God would claim to complete a self-Revelation in history without finding a way to secure that Revelation against the ravages of human confusion over time. What, after all, would be the point?
Now: It so happens that the Catholic Church is unique among all religions in that it contains within it what we call an “authority principle”. This principle guarantees the veracity of its teaching down through the ages, long after the original Revelation was received. This is so important that any serious reflection upon it enables us to understand immediately that the lack of such an authority principle, in any religion, is a very serious problem indeed.
As a matter of historical confirmation, we can see the difference between having an authority principle and not having one, even within Christianity, by comparing Catholicism to Protestantism. Even casual observers can see that Protestantism has, in its various forms, changed its teachings and beliefs in significant ways, quite literally hundreds of times if not thousands, with the necessary effect that the various sects disagree significantly with each other on even the most central points of faith and morals.
Clearly, this will not do.
The Catholic Authority Principle
The authority principle in Catholicism consists of Christ’s establishment of the Petrine authority, by which the successors of Peter confirm their brethren in the Faith until Christ comes again at the end of time. This principle is rooted in the prayer and promise of Christ, as preserved in Scripture (e.g., Mt 16:18-19; Lk 22:31-32; Jn 21:15-17; Acts 15:7-12) and in Tradition, and as articulated and exercised consistently from the very first by the Church Christ established to bring His salvation to the ends of the earth. It is just this that is the unique claim of the Catholic Church.
When it comes to reliance on the authority principle, it is also vital that Catholics know exactly when it is in active operation, and when it is not. Catholics have always believed, and the Church has defined this clearly, that the vicars of Christ on earth speak infallibly, with the full authority of Christ, whenever they
(a) teach
(b) on a matter of faith or morals
(c) to the whole Church
(d) by virtue of their supreme Petrine authority.
This guarantee is sufficient to its purpose, which is to maintain integrity of Divine teaching within the Church until Christ’s return. Its essence is that the Pope cannot bind the whole Church to error, and so Christ’s promise to be with the Church until the end of time cannot turn out to be a lie.
The teaching authority of the Pope, then, is guaranteed in its clear and specific operations, by the same Holy Spirit who guarantees the veracity of Scripture itself. To effect its purpose—which is, obviously, to ensure that the Catholic Church remains essentially credible throughout history—it need not be any stronger or more complicated than it is, nor can it be any less.
Notice, then, that this authority principle instituted by Christ, and unique to Catholicism, has been Divinely established without any guarantee that popes will be good men, intelligent men, clear thinkers, or free from confusion, personal errors, and even sinful and scandalous behavior. None of these inevitable human shortcomings affects the authority principle in the slightest. When any pope makes formally clear that he is deliberately “confirming the brethren” in their faith, the truth of his statement is kept free from error by God Himself. Nothing more, and nothing less, is guaranteed, or needs to be guaranteed, in a Church necessarily made up of sinners.
source
Last edited:
Taken
Well-Known Member
Oh good grief… you are all over the place…
Weird!
I never mentioned Justin Martyr…
Heretic / Christian was not being discussed.
Divorce from the early Church…? Pfff…
No, never said such a thing.
The “First Church”, the “ONLY Church” is Christ Jesus’ Church…and have said on more than one occasion that is where MY Membership IS established.
Heretic or Christian? You don't answer pointed questions, but quick to complain about personal accusations when you have no answer.
Saint Justin Martyr | Biography, Writings, Legacy, & Facts | Britannica
Saint Justin Martyr, one of the most important of the Greek philosopher-Apologists in the early Christian church. His writings represent one of the first positive encounters of Christian revelation with Greek philosophy and laid the basis for a theology of history.
Huh…there were “questions” mixed in with your accusations and lecture…
I must have been yawing…
It's the over time that I have a problem with.
The CC is the original and first church and Peter was indeed looked up to in the first years of the church.
There were 5 popes at the beginning and, without doubt, when there was some problem or other to settle, the other popes went to Peter because he was taught by Jesus.
As far as I'm concerned,,,,the CC, of which I'm a member right now, preserved Christianity from the errors and heresies of the first hundred years,,,I mean hundreds of years - which heresies began while John was still alive....he was very much concerned with gnostics.
It's the changes that came after that concern me and with which I can't agree which is why I find it difficult to call myself a Catholic, although some priests have no problem with this.
I'll tell you some changes:
Celebate priests. Done solely for the convenience of the church in the 1,200's - This is a fact which even priests know but accept (of course). Don't ask me the reason, I can't remember what a priest friend of mine told me...guess I could always ask again -- not important to me.
Indulgences. I mean, no charge nowadays....but a revelation to a saint or pope allows this? Cannot agree.
Purgatory. I understand fully and know the verses, no need to post unless you care to do so for others reading along. It was developed over time and was not taught by the ECFs and I tend to believe what they taught.
Praying to saints is problematic because it would mean that they're omnipresent and only GOD is omnipresent.
I think that's it. I've discussed this with different priests and I'm not worried about my beliefs. Of course they say to pray about it... but I'm a type that needs to know stuff for myself so in that regard I'm not an upstanding catholic - although I devote myself to the church, in one regard in particular.
Agreed.
Sounds like Protestantism, doesn't it??
Agreed.
Agreed.
I had started a thread once stating that Protestants need a Pope!
Agreed.
Agreed.
I'd rather not discuss this Pope.
If you like him, that's fine with me.
The church preaches Christ --- not the Pope.
Agreed.
But I hope he resigns real soon.
Peter was one of them.
There were 5 important regions and each one had a head/an authority so that the bishops could be guided correctly.
Much like the CC today.
Each area had Bishops, so the head had to be called something else, and the word used was Pope.
Papa....like father, and the office was called Ponteficato and he Pontefiche. Which means bridge --- the bridge between us and heaven.
The areas were:
Alexandria
Constantinople
Rome
Jerusalem
Antioch
I believe it was in the 5th century that one of the Bishops first used the term Pope as meaning the ONE POPE, as we have today.
I'm sure this is all available on the internet....
Once the term POPE became popular and accepted....all the Bishops of Rome became known as Pope (the One Pope as established in the 5th century -- not sure about this date)
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Still, no answer to a simple question. You didn't mention Justin Martyr, I did, because it's relevant to the topic.
"The “First Church”, the “ONLY Church” is Christ Jesus’ Church" with an invisible unity, with no history and no pedigree of leadership.
I spoon fed you information about Justin Martyr from a non-Catholic source, yet you still refuse to answer a simple question. Was he a heretic or a Christian? Instead, you reply with nonsense.
Justin Martyr
taught by Irenaeus
taught by Polycarp
taught BY JOHN
taught by JESUS
:)
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Correct. All bishops were called "Pope", the term was exclusively confined to the Bishop of Rome in the 4th or 5th century. Hostile anti-Catholics (Lavrovites) think that was the beginning of the papacy.
The Early Papacy - 2 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker
The reference to Isaiah 22 shows that the structure of Jesus’ kingdom was modeled on King David’s dynastic court. In Luke 1.32-33 Jesus’ birth is
www.patheos.com
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Similar threads
