Posted on 05/09/2011 10:59:18 AM PDT by Bokababe
from reading your prior posts, you don’t hold to the Catholic Faith that these seven saints held to. you have decided to follow your own mind, which contradicts the Catholic Faith. yet, you claim biblical authority for this!
baptismal regeneration - true doctrine or false doctrine?
I hold to the universal faith of believers, that which even Old Testament saints belonged to.
the universal ( catholic ) faith believes in baptismal regeneration, do you?
Behave, you know that went right over some heads. Snork.
I do not believe that salvation is dependent on baptism.
Are you going to tell me it wasn’t Gutenburg, it was a Papist trying to set Christianity free from the shackles of the Papacy? The same Papacy that had kept people from the Bible for a thousand years?
so your mind tells you the universal Church was confused for 16 centuries how one is saved? augustine, athanasius, basil and gregory all didn’t understand baptism?
do you see where “the mind” and it’s vanity can take one? no one understood what baptism was for 16 centuries???
No, again it's not just my individual mind operating in some kind of a vacuum.
As I said, the body of saints includes those of the Old Testament, many of whom are cited in Hebrews 11. They had saving faith, but did not undergo baptism. Obviously baptism is not necessary for salvation.
The thief on the cross is in Paradise; he did not undergo baptism.
These are scriptural facts. You only cite some fallible men. You can argue with Scripture if you like. I (not operating in a vacuum on my own...many, many church leaders believe believe the same) choose not to.
more vanity, scripture clearly teaches baptismal regeneration, the universal Church has taught this doctrine for 2,000 years, because it was received from the Apostles. i don’t point to fallible men, i point to the infallible Church, given authority by Jesus Himself. you claim to be part of this universal church, but you are actually in rebellion against it. Jesus prayed in John 17 we all be one, but your “mind” won’t allow for this. Again, do you understand the audacity of what you are saying, the “pillar of truth” didn’t understand baptism for 16 centuries? the idolatry of worshipping your mind must be very strong indeed. the very men God chose to set the canon of Scripture didn’t understand baptism, unbelievable.
Hmmm...yet I gave you clear Scripture which clearly points in another direction. Seems like you are the one who is vain, refusing to entertain truth. There is no doubt that the Old Testament saints are in Heaven. Did they experience baptism? You will not acknowledge it because you are vain but they did not and still are in Heaven.
The men you seem to worship as infallible did make mistakes. There were cultural situations which led them to make some of the decisions they did. They were still saints, but not infallible contrary to your man-worshipping ideas.
The "pillar of truth" is made up of fallible men so has and will make mistakes.
It's just not right to think it is incapable of some error.
your problem is you don’t understand Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the Church to lead it into all truth. The Holy Spirit does not lead someone to believe one thing about baptism in the first century and then lead someone else to believe something else about baptism in the 21st century. the NT is filled with passages that state baptism is for the remission of sins, see Acts 2 and Acts 22 for just two examples. everywhere the Apostles planted the Faith, the Holy Spirit led them to teach baptismal regeneration, so when the Apostle John died, it was a universally held doctrine. this is how the catholic church got it’s name, because whether you were in greece, turkey, rome, antioch, corinth, the same universal ( catholic ) faith was held. augustine, athanasius, basil and gregory had the humility to be taught the Faith received from the Apostles, a Faith that included baptismal regeneration. This doctrine did not come from fallible man, but from the Holy Spirit. you can’t cite any Scripture where anyone was told to pray a sinners prayer or ask Jesus to come into their heart. Scripture is clear, in baptism you receive forgiveness of your sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The thief on the cross was before Matthew 28:18-20, as were all the OT saints. you believe a heresy that first appeared on the world stage in the 16th century. Where was the Holy Spirit before then? what is more likely, that no one understood baptism for 16 centuries or the devil hates the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and tells vain men it is not true? cultrual situations? next your are going to tell me Jesus didn’t mean “This is My Body” when He said “This is My Body”. you follow the Bible, so you do believe Jesus, right?
“some error” that would have been some error, not understanding what baptism is. if they got that wrong, maybe they got the books of the Bible wrong, maybe they got the Trinity wrong, maybe they got the divinity of Jesus wrong......or maybe, just maybe, the pillar of truth is just that and it is your “mind” that is wrong. which is more likely?
The name change transcends merely ascribing “characteristics” to Peter. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. Like all previous name changes,Abram to Abraham, real, tangible authority accompanied the name change.
Actually the author of this article is Orthodox Christian. I posted it and I'm an Orthodox Christian.
I think that you have mistaken both the author and I as Roman Catholic, because when we say "The Church", we really do mean the the Orthodox Church -- not because we Orthodox as individuals are "special" (we are not) or because we have the most cool whizz-bang theologians, but because the Orthodox Church is the only Church that hasn't changed its teaching since the days when there was only one Christian Church, when our Lord gave us His Teachings.
You are incorrect about the Orthodox "not arguing for the primacy of the Pope". The Orthodox too believe in the "primacy of the Pope" but NOT "the supremacy of the Pope".
Short version is that the Orthodox perceive the Pope as "The Vicar (substitute) of Peter", but not as "the Vicar (substitute) of Christ". Our Lord Jesus Christ has no human "substitutes" as the Head of his Church and needs none.
Matt 16:18-19 rejects your assertion and highlights your lack of understanding.
“And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Iwill give your the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
So, zero, what do you suppose is meant when Christ says “And I say to you, you are Peter....etc.”? How many people was Christ speaking to at that moment?
Yes, the universal church. But the catholic church is not the universal church, even though there have been so many saints in it throughout the centuries. There are many saints outside the catholic church as well.
The Holy Spirit does not lead someone to believe one thing about baptism in the first century and then lead someone else to believe something else about baptism in the 21st century
That same Holy Spirit was alive and well in Old Testament times and did not require baptism for salvation. What is perceived as the Holy Spirit may not be so regardless of how many people claim it is. Cultural circumstances DO lead to different practices.
Scripture is clear, in baptism you receive forgiveness of your sins
Jesus in Mark 2:5 told the paralytic his sins were forgiven when he saw faith. There was no mention of baptism. Same for the thief on the cross.
“... a thing which could not have happened if Christ meant that Peter was absolute and infallible.”
Again you illustrate a complete lack of understanding, regarding “infallibility”.
It doesn’t mean Peter couldn’t make math or spelling errors!
Infallibility applies only to ex-cathedra pronouncements on matters of faith and morals.
As for “infallible successors”, what kind of non-sense are you proposing here?
Do you suppose Christ’s authority presented in 16:18-19, was meant to end with the life of Peter or the other Apostles? How meaningless would that be?
As for your weak opinion regarding the meaning of Timothy and your alleged “silence” regarding Peter’s authority, try these on for size:
Mt 16:18-19
Lk 22:32
Jn 21:17
Mk 16:7
Lk 24:34
Acts 1:13-26, 2:14, 2:41, 3:6-7, 5:1-11, 8:21, 10:44-46, 15:7, 15:19
Gal 2:11-14
Peter’s name ALWAYS heads the list of Apostles and occurs 195 times, more than all of the rest put together.
The action in those cultures was to show the world the regenerative decision that had taken place within.
I understand why the church used it as a PROOF as was done in the first century but regeneration takes place in the heart.
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.