For instance Bread.....
I knew about communion to the remarried way before anyone else did. (as others did in my circle).
When did YOU find out about it?
You don't know me.
Stop telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.
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!
I knew about communion to the remarried way before anyone else did. (as others did in my circle).
When did YOU find out about it?
You don't know me.
Stop telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Of course he knew. They all did. And if Peter substituted "Jesus Christ" for son when following the Lord's command, what happened to THE OTHER TWO NAMES in that command? Did Peter just ignore them? Ballsy of him, don't you think?
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,656
- 3,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
The problem here is that your objections are based heavily on Scriptural ignorance.
Priestly celibacy, indulgences, confessing to a priest, purgatory, intercession of the saints, veneration of relics – these things are ALL based in Scripture.
Paul preached about the benefits of celibacy as a more excellent way of service God. Priests in the Latin Rite are bound by the discipline of celibacy – but the Eastern Rites allow marriage for the clergy.
On the night of His Resurrection, Jesus said the following to His disciples:
John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”
The practice of confessing your sins to the Church goes ALL the way back to the Apostles sand is also mentioned as necessary in the Didache (The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles) [AD 50].
The doctrine of Purgatory is based in verses like 2 Macc. 12:42-46, 1 Cor. 3:12-15, Matt. 5:25-26,
Matt. 12:32, Matt. 18:32-35 and Luke 12:58-59.
1 Cor. 3:12-15 speaks of suffering and eventual salvation - after death.
- It can’t be Heaven because there is suffering.
- It can’t be Hell because there is eventual salvation.
- It is speaking of a THIRD place – a place of final purification.
Rev. 8:5 shows the Elders in Heaven interceding on our behalf by taking our prayers to God as incense
Your repeated blunder of claiming that the Church is “secretly” making changes without providing some evidence is what makes your posts so silly . . .
No – it’s a mistake to think that the Church STARTED Baptizing babies because of what Augustine wrote.
This was in practice centuries BEFORE Augustine.
I don't "distance" anyone from the Church. Those who hate and lie about the Church will do it anyway. I'm just here to expose them.
And I DO teach a class at my parish.
Unfortunately, I spend FAR more time exposing liars and those who misrepresent the Church – like YOU . . .
Rome was NOT the head of the Church at the time. Advice and guidance are one thing. But Bishoprics in the East (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) did not recognize Rome's bishop as having authority over them.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
When Alexander, Metropolitan bishop of Alexandria, embarked on his goal to crush Arianism, he wrote to bishops throughout the Mediterranean world and beyond to enlist their resistance to the heresy. He didn't appeal to Pope Sylvester to simply use his Papal authority to crush Arianism. The reason: No bishops in the east recognized Pope Sylvester's jurisdiction over the Eastern Church.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
First, I think you don't know what you are talking about.
Second, I'm not running down your rabbit holes.
Third, try using primary source documentation and then I will take you seriously.
Fourth, you previously rambled nonsense about Pope Sylvester who you think had no authority to send his legates to the Council of Nicae, or the authority they had was meaningless because the Pope wasn't physically present at the council. That classifies you as a Caesaropapist, the first link has a list from primary sources that comes close to your problem with authority in general.
Roman See as Historic Standard-Bearer of Orthodoxy (+ the Ecclesiological Absurdity of Anti-Catholic-Type Eastern Orthodox Arguments Against Roman Primacy & Apostolicity) [1997]
Attempted “Dialogue” with an Anti-Catholic Orthodox [1997]
Sack of Constantinople (1204) & Unknown Byzantine Atrocities [1998]
Dialogue w Anti-Catholic Orthodox Christian (ROCOR) [1998]
Is Orthodoxy Immune from Modernism and Dissent? [11-7-98]
Anti-Catholic Orthodox Claims of Exclusive Apostolic Succession [Nov. 1998; revised in 2004]
Dialogue w Orthodox on Why Catholics Become Orthodox [3-20-99]
Schisms & Heresies in Eastern Christianity Before 1054 [2000]
Caesaropapism in Orthodoxy & the Byzantine Empire [2000]
Clarification on Heretical Eastern Patriarchs (260-715) [1-7-03]
Orthodoxy & Catholicism Read by Czech Bishops & Priests [6-16-11]
Exchange with an Anti-Catholic Orthodox: Originally on the Papacy (vs. Richard A. Shaward) [Facebook, 12-2-11]
Last edited:
Sylvester DEFINITELY had authority to send legates to Nicea. I have never said otherwise. His physical presence at the Council is irrelevant if his emissaries act in his stead. I have never said otherwise.
I did. Click on the link in Post #766.
If the Papacy had widely recognized authority over Eastern dioceses in AD 325, why do YOU think Alexander didn't take the easy course of just appealing to Pope Sylvester to anathemize the Arian heresy?
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
It's evident to me that you have been indoctrinated with typical Protestant misconceptions, the wallpaper of the evangelical world..
Last edited:
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
I don't care. The Eastern dioceses, who were in heresy most of the time, proves the papacy had no universal jurisdiction, which is what you are asserting. It doesn't make sense. Why do you think a council was needed in the first place???
Additionally, councils have greater authority than the pope. That is evident in CofN ecclesiology. That was Cardinal Bellarmine's point preceding Vatican I. His point is consistent with a council held 15+ centuries previous. Christianity without consistency is not Christianity. More like a conglomerate of Burger King franchises. "Have It Your Way".
As an off topic side note, Protestants were invited to Vatican I as observers, but they refused to attend. It took them 115 years to calm down a little bit. They were again invited to observe Vatican II, and attended with all the amenities freely provided.
Cardinal Bellarmine is the guy the rabid anti-Catholic bigots claim he said the pope is God, and are too proud to be corrected. I looked him up and discovered councils have greater authority than the pope. I didn't know that.
It's too bad Pope Sylvester couldn't find a plane with wheel chair accessibility so he could fly around the east and beat the heretics over the head with his crozier.
Last edited:
When he commanded to baptize in the name of the son, he meant his name is "son"?
I was baptized like you as an infant.
I saw this...
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism....
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
...rebaptized, which you have not done.
Whatever you Catholics tried to add to our 27 books got debunked and thwarted.
Though the ancients debunked them, you can read them all you want.
I won't stop you from reading extra Biblical literature that was rejected.
It's a free country.
Yes, Jesus blew it according to you guys for choosing Peter, handing him the keys, then Peter not baptizing in the titles but in Jesus name only.
When you say you would rather obey Jesus than Peter, you implicate Jesus for not forseeing that the disciples in Acts would louse it up and baptize in the name of Jesus instead.
No, Peter knew the name of the Father is Jesus, the name of the son is Jesus, and the name of the Holy Ghost is Jesus.
You didn't know that???
Peter did not have a written NT and you do, yet you don't know that?
What are they teaching folks these days, anyway?
I know...they teach the name of Jesus is "son"...LOL.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
short answer:
United Pentecostal Church International,reports a membership of over 5.75 million.[47] But they may differ from Truther's private brand of "Jesus onlyism", a man made tradition started in 1913 in California.
long answer:
The first Pentecostals were Holiness Pentecostals, who teach three works of grace (the new birth, entire sanctification, and Spirit baptism accompanied by glossolalia); Finished Work Pentecostals broke off and became partitioned into Trinitarian and nontrinitarian branches, the latter being known as Oneness Pentecostalism.[19][22] The Oneness Pentecostal movement began in 1913 as the result of doctrinal disputes within the nascent Pentecostal movement,[7][23] specifically within the Assemblies of God, the first Finished Work Pentecostal denomination.[3][22]
Beginnings of the Oneness movement
In April 1913, at the Apostolic Faith Worldwide Camp Meeting held in Arroyo Seco, CA, conducted by Maria Woodworth-Etter, organizers promised that God would "deal with them, giving them a unity and power that we have not yet known."[24][25] Canadian R. E. McAlister preached a "new revelation" that a baptismal formula in the name of Jesus only was to be preferred over the three-part formula "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" found in Matthew 28:19, pointing to Acts 2:38.[26][27] This revelation immediately caused controversy when Frank Denny—a Pentecostal missionary to China—jumped on the platform and tried to censor McAlister.[28]A young minister named John G. Schaepe was so moved by McAlister's new revelation that, after praying and reading the Bible all night, he ran through the camp the following morning shouting that he'd received a revelation against Trinitarian baptism.[29][30][31][32] This conclusion was accepted by several others in the camp and given further theological development by a minister named Frank Ewart.[33] On April 15, 1914, Frank Ewart and Glenn Cook publicly baptized each other specifically in "the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" in a tank set up in Ewart's Crusade tent.[34][35] This is considered to be the historical point when Oneness Pentecostalism emerged as a distinct movement.[4]
A number of ministers claimed they were baptized in Jesus' name before 1914, including Frank Small and Andrew D. Urshan. Urshan claimed to have baptized others in Jesus Christ's name as early as 1910.[36][37][38][39] In addition, Charles Parham, the founder of the modern Pentecostal movement, was recorded baptizing using a Christological formula during the Azusa Street revival;[40] and until 1914, both Parham and William J. Seymour baptized in this Christological formula but repudiated the new movement's nontrinitarian teachings amidst the controversy as they baptized as Christocentric Trinitarians.[41]
It's like watching a baseball game where all the players are umpires.
Last edited:
Don't mind, i just want to know, iron sharpens iron, am for you not against you, thank you.
i agree, because the Holy Bible exposes and judges so as the 'harlot', Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruit."
We're merely witnessing the truth, and readers and listeners are not to be deceived by teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. They draw near to GOD with their mouth, and honor HIM with their lips, but their heart is far from HIM. Therefore have they made the commandment of GOD of none effect by their tradition.
Shalom in the name of Jesus Christ.
Similar threads
