Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let the Bible be “entrusted” to the faithful
La Stampa ^ | April 12, 2013 | Alessandro Speciale

Posted on 04/12/2013 5:10:48 PM PDT by markomalley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-247 last
To: don-o

“What does the Bible tell you about water baptism?”


It tells me it has no connection with salvation, but is symbolic of the spiritual reality of the baptism and infilling of the Holy Spirit, called the greater of the two by John the Baptist. It is an act of obedience after conversion (not done on infants), showing one’s outward conviction to serve God. As an example o this, here is Cornelius and his entire family being baptized by the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism:

Acts 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?


201 posted on 04/15/2013 12:33:27 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"It's no surprise you don't post from the counterfeit catechism which is the authority of Rome that catholics submit to - they are ashamed of it themselves!"

For the record, my professor was a convert to Catholicism who was brought to the Church through an intense study of Scripture. He, like I, also has Jesus.

I know of no Catholic who is or should be ashamed of the Catechism, but I know of a lot of non-Catholics who are afraid of the truth it contains.

Please be aware that when you besmirch "catholics" you are making a personal insult against many, many people who likely love God probably with greater earnestness than you do. I am hard pressed to see how the love of God who is the embodiment of love is judged by a human to be ill placed and unworthy. I am a Catholic who loves God and believes that Jesus is the Christ, yet you claim to know what is in my mind and my heart and deny that without having ever met me.

"Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and every one who loves the parent loves the child. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. 1 John 5:1-3

"Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God." - Romans 14:10

I invite you to join me in the light of His love. Peace.

202 posted on 04/15/2013 12:47:26 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: don-o; Dutchboy88; CynicalBear; metmom; presently no screen name
What does the Bible tell me about water baptism?

That it was required as the first rite to be performed when a priest was inducted into his office. Exodus 29:4. Under the Old Covenant God made with Israel. They were to be a NATION OF PRIESTS, and an HOLY NATION. "And ye shall be unto Me a KINGDOM OF PRIESTS, and an HOLY NATION. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL (Ex. 19:5,6)l. Until the whole nation of Israel obeyed God's voice, only certain people in Israel were set apart as priests, but in connection with the coming of Messiah and the conversion of ALL ISRAEL, God later promised that they ALL would become a WHOLE NATION OF PRIESTS, through whom the Gentiles would approach God: "But YE shall be named the PRIESTS OF THE LORD: men shall call you THE MINISTERS OF OUR GOD" (Isa. 61:6).

So, water baptism was performed under the Mosaic law whereby the priests and those ceremonially "unclean" were both washed, or baptized. Therefore, under the kingdom program, the Jews and the "unclean" Gentiles alike HAD to be baptized. (Matt. 28:19).

Which brings us forward to John the Baptist and the "Kingdom of Heaven is AT HAND". First, John's baptism was associated with the manifestation of Christ. "And I knew him not: But that He should be MADE MANIFEST TO ISRAEL, THEREFORE am I come BAPTIZING WITH WATER" (John 1:31). John baptized the people "for the remission of sins". That is plainly stated. This was NOT changed after the resurrection of Christ, for at Pentecost Peter offered Christ's return and the times of refreshing TO ISRAEL, calling upon them to "repent and be baptized...FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS" (Acts 2:38). This was done in strict obedience to the commission given to Peter by the risen Lord, in which He expressly stated that "He that believeth and IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED" (Mark 16:16).

So far, we KNOW, according to God's Word, that the message of John, our Lord (Matt.4:17), His twelve apostles (Matt:10:5-7) was REPENT and BE BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. And it was proclaimed by John, Christ, and the 12 to ISRAEL. Because the "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WAS AT HAND (Matt. 3:2), and ISRAEL WAS TO BECOME A NATION OF PRIESTS to the whole world, thus the necessity to be baptized, washed, cleansed. The proclamation of this message and its results are what the "Four Gospels" record. It had been predicted, expected and was now proclaimed "at hand". The provision for ISRAEL to become this NATION OF PRIESTS had been made in Exodus, as I've already shown you.

So now, we are up to Pentecost. Still dealing with Israel, still waiting for them to repent, be baptized, turn to God, whereby Christ would return and set up His Messianic Kingdom, with Israel as His priests to the Gentiles.

So far, are you with me?

203 posted on 04/15/2013 12:52:39 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

It’s not Christ’s dying that saves us but His death because the wages of sin is DEATH, not dying.

Leaving Jesus on the cross means that He has not finished the work of redemption that HE said was finished.

If any church thinks that the blood is His real blood, that blood cannot save because it isn’t shed. You are right. Jesus blood, which He needed for this earthly body, is not necessary for His resurrected body because it’s a new body, not His old one. Catholics believe that we get the same bodies as we have now and Scripture teaches against that.


204 posted on 04/15/2013 2:10:56 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

It’s not Christ’s dying that saves us but His death because the wages of sin is DEATH, not dying.

Leaving Jesus on the cross means that He has not finished the work of redemption that HE said was finished.

If any church thinks that the blood is His real blood, that blood cannot save because it isn’t shed. You are right. Jesus blood, which He needed for this earthly body, is not necessary for His resurrected body because it’s a new body, not His old one. Catholics believe that we get the same bodies as we have now and Scripture teaches against that.


205 posted on 04/15/2013 2:11:55 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
"God is faithful to us; it is we men that may be unfaithful to God. Remember that even St Paul was concerned about losing his salvation."

No, br'er, he was not. Please read on.

If you have been placed by God into the Body of Christ at salvation, your sins were forgiven, past, present and future - including the worst of the worst.

"We must be careful not to confuse the fear of disqualification with the fear of damnation. Paul had no fear that he would lose his salvation (Rom. 8:29–39). In the context what he could lose was a reward.

How ironic and pathetic it would be for Paul to forfeit a crown through his own lack of self-discipline or by breaking the Judge’s rules since He had instructed others concerning how to win one."

Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (1 Co 9:27)

Romans 8:29-39

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was [a]raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of [b]Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written,

For Your sake we are being put to death all day long;
We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


206 posted on 04/15/2013 2:15:03 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

MarkBsnr,
Even though I haven’t seen you in a while and always enjoy a beer and great conversation with you, I’m going to withdraw from this discussion. You have your hands full with other conversations here that are oppositional.

I will catch up with you again, no doubt.

blessings.


207 posted on 04/15/2013 2:17:08 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
MarkBsnr,

Even though I haven’t seen you in a while and always enjoy a beer and great conversation with you, I’m going to withdraw from this discussion. You have your hands full with other conversations here that are oppositional.

I will catch up with you again, no doubt.

blessings.

A thousand blessings upon you and yours. Many thanks for the kind exchange and as for the opposition - there is none so blind as those who will not see.


208 posted on 04/15/2013 2:31:10 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Leaving Jesus on the cross means that He has not finished the work of redemption that HE said was finished."

That is a very primitive understanding of Catholic theology. We do not "leave" Jesus on the Cross, but make present in the one Sacrifice.

The cross is a contradiction in every way, like most divine mysteries. It is the vertical symbol of life contradicted by the horizontal symbol of death. It is the Roman symbol of state terror and oppression contradicted by the Christian symbol of victory over death. Those contradictions make sense ONLY when Jesus is superimposed upon them.

The Crucifix, with the Corpus present, is in recognition that it is only through Jesus' suffering and death for our sins that we have our Salvation. It is a reminder that the Mass is not some symbolic recreation of the Last Supper or a farewell meal, it is the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, a sacrifice of expiation.

Before you dismiss symbols and symbolism as purely Catholic superstitions have you not claimed that the Eucharist itself is symbolic?

Peace be with you

209 posted on 04/15/2013 2:47:57 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
Yes. Unlike some of our antagonists, I think that we understand that there are requirements given to Christians and that they are required to follow them.”

These “requirements,” of course, in you view, aren’t REALLY the following:

Joh 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Mar 12:30-31 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (31) And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Gal_5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Jas_2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Because the actual charge is, “you do not do what is required... which is being in the Roman Catholic Church and obeying it.” If you were truly a great moralizer, calling people to the requirements of religion, there would be no conlict here with he Romans being so outraged. You would instead ask us to have faith in God, and “love your neighbour as yourself,” for in these things one fulfills the royal law, according to Christ and all of the Apostles. No mention here of bowing and scraping for the scraps offered by the Roman pontiff. And, certainly not any indication that one’s imperfections or perfections have in any effect on salvation.

I am not outraged. I am amused at yet another would-be Martin Luther inventing yet again another religion of the one in the mirror. You may wish to read up on the mathematical operand "and". It is of great significance here.

Do this in remembrance of me, not “resacrifice me and eat this bread so that you may be saved.” In fact, do you have any evidence that the Lord’s supper, from the scipture, isn’t always an actual supper of believers? Such is the way I’ve practiced it.

Irenaeus speaks at length about it; we have other writings from the second and third centuries. I don't really care how you practice it - I only care how Christians are supposed to practice it.

You say I only bring snippets out of context, but never so much as provide any data that actually shows why those quotes, and lots of them, are false. Thou Pharisee, are you not just too lazy to explain what those scriptures mean and how you reconcile them with you Romanist views, because the fact of the matter is you are more concerned with what is handed down to you from Rome than what is handed us by the Apostles?

Are you calling me names? Are you reading my mind? No, I assumed (silly me) that you would know Scripture well enough to understand my posts and the passages to which I have alluded. Very well, in the spirit of the unlettered and the grasping at straws, I will post chapter and verse. I had hoped that whoever you are, you were more familiar with Scripture. I am disappointed.

They are the scripture. Not once have you addressed any of the words of Paul or Jesus, which I have provided. Do you really seriously think that by saying something like “Look at the feg tree! I’m CATHLUCK, tarefore, it disproofs u!@#$” is an argument? How about you show us how the fig tree isn’t a metaphore for Israel, how the gentiles are not grafted in, and how people aren’t really saved by grace through faith, or how any of the scriptures I have provided don’t mean what they directly say, based on the context you affirm clearly disproves it?

I referred to Jesus and Paul and you claimed that I did not post from Scripture. Interesting. If Jesus and Paul are not considered Scripture in your world, then what is?

210 posted on 04/15/2013 6:15:42 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

“I am not outraged.”


Neither am I, since you took the time to insult me instead of addressing what I said. Saves me time.

“I referred to Jesus and Paul and you claimed that I did not post from Scripture. Interesting. If Jesus and Paul are not considered Scripture in your world, then what is?”


Your arguments at this point are depending on strawmen, insults, accusations, diversions, outright ignoring statements and documentation, and unproved assertions. Looks like you’re ready to throw in the towel soon.

So, which Pope are you in communion with? The one in Rome, Antioch, or Alexandria?


211 posted on 04/15/2013 6:25:31 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

You have heard of the Real Presence, haven’t you. The REAL Body and Blood received at Communion in the Catholic Church? Why do you try to spin my words elsewhere?

FYI, the Catholic Church is all about Jesus — The Liturgy of the Word in the Mass and the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the second half of the Mass.

Can’t get more about Jesus Christ than that.

Blessings to you; I will pray for you.


212 posted on 04/15/2013 6:44:33 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; presently no screen name
"Can't get more Jesus Christ than that."

"Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in ME FIRST Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a PATTERN TO THEM WHICH SHOULD HEREAFTER BELIEVE ON HIM TO LIFE EVERLASTING." 1 Tim. 1:16.

Evidently, you CAN get "more Jesus Christ than that".

213 posted on 04/15/2013 6:52:44 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"Let the Bible be entrusted to the faithful"

So that would be.......the Baptists? Or.....

214 posted on 04/15/2013 7:04:55 PM PDT by cookcounty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty; markomalley
They would be or could be included, if I'm getting the gist of the article.

It was more along the lines of the faithful not being intimidated into surrendering to the "modernist" analytical who bring to the table their own suppositions based more on their own prejudices, than some actual finding, discovery, or inherent superiority of methodolgy which they employ.

We've seen discussion on these pages concerning even a few inside the RCC who lean towards seeing Christ as figurative/mythological. Interestingly enough, some of the worst offenders along those lines, are Jesuits, which brotherhood the new pope is part of.

I'm not suggesting for one instant that Francis is one of those sort of Jesuits, but it's likely he knows of them, and has seen a few up close.

Some modern scholars don't hesitate to scoff at each account of miracles, and the like, putting them fully into the catogory of mythology, for example...reducing scripture to morality tale, legend, and religio-cultural artifact.

I do think it was more those types of folks he had in mind, while putting forth tradition of the church, against the "science" skeptics.

There is much more overlap concerning the approach towards what we know as scripture, between this new pope (and the last one) and Baptists in general (one would hope) than between many of the modern NT "scholars" and their methodologies.

Mark D. Roberts, himself a NT scholar, trained at Harvard, spoke of that sort of thing in a book of his titled Can We Trust the Gospels:Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

I'd give you a copy, but gave the one I had away (since it was such a good read).

215 posted on 04/15/2013 7:57:16 PM PDT by BlueDragon (drinking tea leads to right wing racism. gospel according to chrissy the sissy matthews)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

While you are alive — perfect mercy.

At the moment of your death — perfect justice.

Such is Jesus Christ.

I think all of us believe that.


216 posted on 04/15/2013 8:16:09 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
FYI, the Catholic Church is all about Jesus — The Liturgy of the Word in the Mass and the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the second half of the Mass.

If you think that is being all about Jesus, the RCC is successful in it's deception on it's subjects. And I don't need an 'fyi' on the counterfeit church - I left it because I was able to see the deception in it by the grace of God and through HIS WORD.

Those who remain 'in it' refuse to see what is over the top obvious, so the CC brain washing has made their subjects rebuke TRUTH and accept 'man's' truth which is a LIE. Like their leader/papa/man says 'I'm all yours, Mary'. Rome/RCC's man made training is to make their subjects 'all about man' and that is what the CC is - a secular/worldly organization - all about man and not about Jesus. Either one is 'all of HIS' or 'none of HIS' - and the CC papa/pope/leader is 'none of HIS' - "I'm all yours, Mary'.

No one can serve two masters! So take that as a warning - one cannot have 'some' of God/Supernatural and 'some' of man/natural. There are only two choices Life or Death, blessings or curses. "This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose LIFE, so that you and your children may live". And ONLY JESUS is LIFE - eternal LIFE is JESUS, not man. 'I am The Way, The Truth, the LIFE'.

The focus of the RCC is ALL about man. Satan wants the focus OFF of JESUS. So the RCC has their 'man made teachings' as their final authority and not God and His teachings. JESUS is "The Word of God". So you thinking the CC it's 'all about Jesus' is null and void and it's not rocket science for one to see that. Catholics are taught to pray to the dead, and the RCC designed a 'saint' for whatever ails a catholic' - the CC is all about man; yet, man is nothing without JESUS. Since the CC honors man and their man made teachings is their final authority - they are nothing but death and have no eternal life.

Can’t get more about Jesus Christ than that.

No. That is all you want. And that's all the counterfeit church allows. So you can't have a clue when I say 'it is ALL about Jesus'.

Blessings to you;

Rome/RCC has chosen curses, they have no blessings coming out of it and they secure it with their man made teachings and with their deception/evil they entice the weak/easily deceived into it and to stay in it.

I will pray for you.

WHO and what are you going to pray for me - when I said I'm 'in Christ' and securely in the Hand of God. It can only be to pray me away from HIM. It can't be done. Catholicism is futile in all it does - it only benefits satan/evil.

217 posted on 04/16/2013 7:58:36 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

**Those who remain ‘in it’ refuse to see what is over the top obvious, so the CC brain washing has made their subjects rebuke TRUTH and accept ‘man’s’ truth which is a LIE.**

This is not true. I don’t know where you get your information, but the Catholic Church believes that Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer.

Are you listening to someone who hates the Catholic Church?

Reading pamplets?

Reading comic books?

It is difficult to carry on a conversation/discussion with you when you try to tell Catholics what they believe.

Could you cease that?

I will pray for you — In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit........................


218 posted on 04/16/2013 8:08:56 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
This is not true. I don’t know where you get your information,

What part of me spending 2/3 my life 'in it' that you either can't grasp or NEED to ignore? So save your 'it's not true'.

but the Catholic Church believes that Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer.

Tells us what they 'say' about co-redeemer Mary - but don't bother, I heard all their lies and their focus on man.

So Rome/RCC can "say' what they believe and that's where deception enters - because you believe what they 'say'. One knows them know them by what they DO - not say! Their man made teachings is their final authority - and that alone should be a clue to even the most deceived! ANYONE whose intent is to serve JESUS would NEVER have 'their/man own set of teachings'. So the intent of the Rome/RCC is not to serve JESUS but man and we see it all played out in what they DO.

Either it is THE WORD OF GOD or satan's words. You choose! Rome/The RCC chose 'another', as did the Mormon church, as did the Muslims. All with their 'own words/bible'!

Are you listening to someone who hates the Catholic Church?

I LISTEN TO GOD ALONE and through HIS WORD ALONE. Catholics are the ones listening to 'someone' else, as do the Mormons and Muslims. And use the word 'hate' when TRUTH is spoken. Hate is from satan and to use it as you did with the catholic church is fitting!

Reading comic books?

That's from man - so not surprised a catholic would say that.

It is difficult to carry on a conversation/discussion with you when you try to tell Catholics what they believe. Could you cease that?

It's you that needs to cease. When it is already established I KNOW what they believe as having been 'in the deception church'. So it's more like you don't want to hear Rome/RCC is deceiving their flock and chose to BELIEVE what 'man says' and not what GOD SAYS. There are only two choices. There is NO 'a little of this and a little of that'. Catholics chose man/the catechism - I chose GOD'S Word ALONE and that's where your difficulty comes from.

And you are looking for a conversation? Repent from believing what 'man says' and then have your conservation with GOD through HIS Holy Spirit inspired WORD.

No need for anymore back and forth as you were given The Holy Spirit inspired Word of God and you made the choice to receive and defend what is from 'man', the catechism. No sweat off of my brow as this was meant as a warning to the deceived and to rebuke the lies they were taught by evil and NOT meant for a conversation because the only words that count have already been written in HIS Word which is The Final Authority and each man will be judged by God's Word on that final day.

"The one who rejects ME and does not receive MY Words has a Judge; The Word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day." John 12:48

Take note: God speaks through HIS WORD so we hear Him and obey Him by what He says in HIS WORD.

"Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." John 8:47

219 posted on 04/16/2013 10:37:49 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: don-o
Sorry to leave your reply hanging... I have had some downtime switching out/back from DSL to cable (w00t! w00t!)

Should not those who hold to that belief own up to it?

Sure - but by the same token, ultradispensationalism does not necessarily equal Bullingerism. Bullingerism is extremely uncommon... Just sayin.

220 posted on 04/16/2013 11:30:55 AM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

I believe that the link is to a semi-Bullingerite source. It does reject some of it, but does accept the rejection of water baptism.

Did I say that right?


221 posted on 04/16/2013 12:07:09 PM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory, and He will not be mocked! Blessed be the Name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: don-o
I believe that the link is to a semi-Bullingerite source. It does reject some of it, but does accept the rejection of water baptism.

Semi-Bullinger is not Bullinger. Ultradispensationalism is not Bullinger, but Bullinger is ultradispensationalist. To indict all of ultradispensationalism with Bullinger is misinformed.

For instance, my own view is right along Pentecostal lines... That the baptism by water is not the efficacious mechanism, but rather, the baptism by fire is:

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

If one has received the Spirit, then the deed is done. That does not mean that I deny the water baptism per se... Nor do the Pentecostals. This is no doubt considered to be an ultradispensational view, but it is not Bullinger, and the water baptism is not discounted.

I will note, however, that I think that the baptism practiced today is not what was done then, and I think the sense of the Hebrew Mikvah is more appropriate (my own view, not the Pentecostals).

222 posted on 04/16/2013 12:58:30 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
“I am not outraged.”

Neither am I, since you took the time to insult me instead of addressing what I said. Saves me time.

I took your postings in the spirit which I believed that they were offered.

Your arguments at this point are depending on strawmen, insults, accusations, diversions, outright ignoring statements and documentation, and unproved assertions. Looks like you’re ready to throw in the towel soon.

Nope, they depend upon the words of Christ, the rest of Scripture, the Church, and all the wishes and actions of antiCatholics.

So, which Pope are you in communion with? The one in Rome, Antioch, or Alexandria?

That would be telling.

223 posted on 04/16/2013 3:01:33 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I just checked, where did I mention dying? I said He died on the Cross.

It is FINISHED and HE IS RISEN - and Rome/RCC still has HIM on the cross. It's because HE'S Risen that evil/Rome cannot stand. It is because HE DID RISE from the dead that we have salvation. And once He rose, evil had no more dominion over us. So evil worked through 'the religious' and teaches their subjects they have to work for it, so, once, again, evil is trying to have dominion back what Adam/Eve gave him after Jesus reclaimed it for us. So now we are 'free in Christ' while catholics, mormons, muslims are in 'bondage to man'.

Catholics believe that we get the same bodies as we have now

They believe it because they were taught it. They are gullible and too lazy to search for Truth.

224 posted on 04/16/2013 3:07:48 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Remember that when we gather in this forum in His name he is here with us.

Correction! The Spirit of God lives within me, so where ever I am - HE is there, also.

God's Word is THE FINAL AUTHORITY!

225 posted on 04/16/2013 3:32:07 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Got news for you, Natural Law, you ain't my brother!

My brothers and sisters are 'in Christ' they are those who are born again and believe God's Word is The Final Authority.

226 posted on 04/16/2013 3:40:41 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"The Spirit of God lives within me, so where ever I am - HE is there, also."

The evidence of that is in the Fruit of the Holy Spirit.

"Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love." - 1 John 4:8

Peace be with you

227 posted on 04/16/2013 3:45:51 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
The 'baptism of fire', the baptism of the Spirit

ACTS! That's when 'the power' comes!

228 posted on 04/16/2013 3:54:07 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Those who reject Truth/God’s Word do not want love - for God is love and HIS Word is the Final Authority.

So burn up your man made teachings/catechism. You can’t serve two masters.


229 posted on 04/16/2013 3:59:44 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

“I took your postings in the spirit which I believed that they were offered.”


You offered me spam and insults, without addressing the challenges made against you. And now you still bug me, when you have nothing to show for it. Where are all the answers to the questions and challenges I made?

Still waiting on your explanation of “Pope” Gregory the First, which I’ve asked you about more than just a few times now, and just WHEN the Holy Roman Church finally got around to establishing the allegedly always-existent tradition of the Primacy of Rome.


230 posted on 04/16/2013 4:28:00 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"Got news for you, Natural Law, you ain't my brother!"

But you are mine.

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the parent loves the child." - 1 John 5:1

"For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters," - Hebrews 2:11

Peace and blessings

231 posted on 04/16/2013 4:31:28 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"Those who reject Truth/God’s Word do not want love..."

The Lord gave us a Paraclete to be with us forever. It shows us the Truth within the Revealed Word.(John 14:16)

Pax et Bonem

232 posted on 04/16/2013 4:51:36 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

Comment #233 Removed by Moderator

To: presently no screen name
"God’s WORD is Written."

You are going to have to interpret for me. If you are referring to the Sacred Scripture you will not get an argument from me, however you will not get me to agree that the Sacred Scripture represents 100% of the Revealed Truth or the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

However, if you are implying the WORD is the Logos, as used by St. John in the first verse of his Gospel, you are not going to get anywhere.

Dominus Vobiscum.

234 posted on 04/16/2013 5:37:04 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

Comment #235 Removed by Moderator

Comment #236 Removed by Moderator

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
“I took your postings in the spirit which I believed that they were offered.” You offered me spam and insults

I do not believe it is possible to insult you.

And now you still bug me, when you have nothing to show for it. Where are all the answers to the questions and challenges I made?

I have answered them - as anyone who knows the Bible would appreciate.

Still waiting on your explanation of “Pope” Gregory the First, which I’ve asked you about more than just a few times now

Negative. I asked you which Pope Gregory you referred to and you did not answer. I offered some possible scenarios and you still did not answer. Where did you learn your debating techniques? Princeton?

which I’ve asked you about more than just a few times now, and just WHEN the Holy Roman Church finally got around to establishing the allegedly always-existent tradition of the Primacy of Rome.

You haven't asked about the development of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Answer: it developed by Nicea. Look it up.

237 posted on 04/16/2013 6:59:06 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

What is truth?

Christ is truth.


238 posted on 04/16/2013 7:11:08 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

“Negative. I asked you which Pope Gregory you referred to and you did not answer.”


Yes I did. I identified him as Pope Gregory the First to you directly, TWICE. I’ve identified him multiple times, dealing with multiple people in this thread. There’s even a citation of where it’s from, so you could have searched it yourself. I even told you to look at the quote(s) I posted in this thread, where I identify him directly. I quoted it again at Narses. I quoted it again at Mrs.Don-o. I quoted it right at the start of this thread.

Is it me, or are you marvelous at wasting people’s time?

“I offered some possible scenarios and you still did not answer.”


Possible scenarios? Let’s look:

“And to which Gregory (Gregorius) are you referring? There were 16. If you are referring to Gregory the Great, are you alluding to the creation of the Pre Tridentine Mass? If so, does that mean that with my fondness of the Tridentine Mass, you would claim that I don’t hold the same beliefs as him?”


First of all, this is one scenario, and its not even a scenario. It’s basically a scenario wherein you utterly ignore what I wrote. The simple answer is: No. It has nothing to do with the Pre-Tridentine mass. If you read the quote, you would not have said it had anything to do with the Pre-Tridentine mass. The quote I provided you says nothing about the Pre-Tridentine mass.

So here it is, again, in all its glory. Let’s see what the next waste of time you throw at me will be:

“Pope” Gregory placing the throne of Peter under three Bishops:

“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — In the Eulogy’ to the Bishop of Alexandria

Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:

“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.


239 posted on 04/16/2013 7:37:02 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
“Negative. I asked you which Pope Gregory you referred to and you did not answer.”

Yes I did. I identified him as Pope Gregory the First to you directly, TWICE.

Interesting. What posting mnmbers were they?

Is it me, or are you marvelous at wasting people’s time?

AntiCatholics are normally good at wasting people's time.

“Pope” Gregory placing the throne of Peter under three Bishops:

I shall not violate the rules of the Forum by calling you an idiot. Read it again.

First of all, this is one scenario, and its not even a scenario. It’s basically a scenario wherein you utterly ignore what I wrote. The simple answer is: No. It has nothing to do with the Pre-Tridentine mass. If you read the quote, you would not have said it had anything to do with the Pre-Tridentine mass. The quote I provided you says nothing about the Pre-Tridentine mass.

I shall not once again call you an idiot. I asked you if what you were referring to was the Tridentine Mass.

“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.

So to you any invidual who is connected with the Catholic Church who produces any script, is to be taken a face value? Do you have no clue as to what the Magisterium is?

240 posted on 04/16/2013 7:58:51 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

“I shall not violate the rules of the Forum by calling you an idiot. Read it again.”


So that’s your big refutation to a quote by Pope Gregory the First? Well, uh, you really got me on this one.

“So to you any invidual who is connected with the Catholic Church who produces any script, is to be taken a face value? Do you have no clue as to what the Magisterium is?”


The magisterium back then believed that the See of Peter was divided between the Bishop of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. Thus, that is why “Pope” Gregory, whom you say is the Universal Pastor (though he himself rejected the notion of the Universal Bishop, calling it the spirit of anti-Christ) and Theodoret, a Bishop, expressed that.

If even a “Pope” and a valuable Bishop can’t be believed when he denies the Primacy of Rome, I’m not sure who we CAN believe in the Roman Catholic church.

Well, I guess they weren’t actually Roman Catholics, at least as we understand them today.


241 posted on 04/16/2013 8:27:22 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

When posting something in another language, be sure to provide the English translation of it unless it is commonly known, such as “aloha.”


242 posted on 04/16/2013 8:38:12 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
You have repeatedly claimed that you have made points or arguments that you actually never made. The posting trail is clear, by the way. This forum does not allow selective editing or deletion of posts.

The magisterium back then believed that the See of Peter was divided between the Bishop of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. Thus, that is why “Pope” Gregory, whom you say is the Universal Pastor (though he himself rejected the notion of the Universal Bishop, calling it the spirit of anti-Christ) and Theodoret, a Bishop, expressed that.

I never said any such thing. And you must realize that Theodoret died a century before Gregory the Great was born. Theodoret was a bishop of Syria, not a part of the Latin branch. Where do you people learn to understand history? Where do you get your history from, anyway? Wikipedia? Little coloured booklets tucked under windshield wipers whilst attending Mass?

You keep saying that I insult you and will not answer your points. You keep claiming that you make these points and don't actually make them. If you wish to engage in serious dialogue, then please do so. Until then, I regard your posts as merely frivolous and extremely antiCatholic, as well as antiChristian and completely opposed to history as we know it.

243 posted on 04/17/2013 3:31:10 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

“You have repeatedly claimed that you have made points or arguments that you actually never made.”


You’re projecting your own bad habits on me. Sorry, but I have the actual “trail” of posts to know I’ve challenged you on this issue plenty of times and have defined it fully, identifying who and what is involved.

Do you notice how you are spending more time debating the debate or debating my character and actions than answering my very simple challenges?

“I never said any such thing. And you must realize that Theodoret died a century before Gregory the Great was born.”


So the Magisterium did not change on that point for over a century.

“Theodoret was a bishop of Syria, not a part of the Latin branch.”


So, were the Syrians and the “Popes” of Rome split at that time? Was “Pope” Gregory the First a rebel Pope who fell into the bad Syrian faction a cenury later and started mouthing their talking points?

“Where do you people learn to understand history?”


Where do you people learn your deductive reasoning?

“You keep saying that I insult you and will not answer your points. You keep claiming that you make these points and don’t actually make them.”


God help me, he farted in my general direction and is back to the insults again!

“as well as antiChristian and completely opposed to history as we know it.”


I regard yours as non-existent, having no basis in history, since Roman Papal views on the primacy of Rome were an innovation, and not a consistent part of Church tradition.

But as for me, I’ll lean on the promises of Christ, which vindicate me just as much as the Thief on the cross. Oh, my God, thou has had mercy on me, a sinner!


244 posted on 04/17/2013 6:49:19 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
“You have repeatedly claimed that you have made points or arguments that you actually never made.”

You’re projecting your own bad habits on me. Sorry, but I have the actual “trail” of posts to know I’ve challenged you on this issue plenty of times and have defined it fully, identifying who and what is involved.

Your claims are as unrelated to reality as is your claim to Christianity.

But as for me, I’ll lean on the promises of Christ, which vindicate me just as much as the Thief on the cross. Oh, my God, thou has had mercy on me, a sinner!

Now I see that you claim that God is answerable to you or else that you have assumed Gnosticism.

But as for me, I'll practice the Faith that has been handed down from the Apostles in an unbroken line that goes all the way back to Christ.

245 posted on 04/17/2013 9:11:34 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

“Now I see that you claim that God is answerable to you or else that you have assumed Gnosticism.

But as for me, I’ll practice the Faith that has been handed down from the Apostles in an unbroken line that goes all the way back to Christ.”


Looks like this is the end of the line for you. I’ve already seen you say both of these things earlier, so if you’re back on them again it means you’re databank is already empty on new phrases. When your programmer comes to take a look at your progress, I hope he reads this message and takes a note or two from ChomskyBot. That thing has literally trillions of combinations of seemingly understandable word combinations, and yet MarkBsnr barely got through a few dozen posts before hitting the point where he has to repeat material. It’s time for a MarkBsnr 2.0, if you ask me.

I’ll conclude with this:

Having met the Romanist on the field, he could not address the evidence that demonstrates development of Papal theology in ancient history, and not a continuous tradition as alleged by his church. He has not demonstrated why we should believe him when he says that we are not Christians.

And so, as for me, I shall rest on the Gospel promise, and pay the Romans, who neither pass into heaven nor permit anyone else to enter, absolutely no mind.

Eph 1:3-14 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: (4) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, (6) To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (7) In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (8) Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; (9) Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: (10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (11) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (12) That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. (13) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (14) Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Amen!


246 posted on 04/17/2013 6:17:11 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
Very good. I see that you are claiming your own salvation. You further claim Papal variation. You claim various sources as being binding on Catholic theology.

You apparently have no clue as to the meaning of 'earnest of inheritance'. It is binding on the giver, but not on the recipient. I am not sure if you are Calvinist or a variant on the OSAS crowd.

I've been over and over with various antiCatholics about the history of the Church and its beliefs and doctrines.

247 posted on 04/17/2013 6:33:25 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-247 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson