Who is the Rock?

WPutnam:

Thanks for the lengthy discourse explaining your position, I stand by mine. I have no problem with Peter. However, you seem to be indicating that because Peter was given this power he was a cut about the rest. How do you know that the other apostles did not have some similar blessing? Indeed, I believe that all believers will ultimately have the same power and authority as Christ. My point is that Peter does not diminish the other apostles' ministries and each one was responsible for spreading the same gospel and therefore they are equally authoritative in the manner of work that God gave to them. You have your beliefs and I can see that it is directing others to the acceptance of the Pope's authority because of Peter's succession. In a similar manner, I believe the continual succession of the Davidic Throne and even based my web site on it. However, my intent is to show off God's faithfulness, not to promote monarchial worship. Like the apostles, monarchs deserve the respect, but they are not the ultimate authority. I do not embrace nor will I ever embrace Catholic theology, as my opinion of it is that there are too many traditions of men contained therein. I am not necessarily saying that people within that frame are not Christians, I just do not agree with the traditions. You can toot the apostle Peter all you want. That's OK. But I'll toot the Apostle Paul. I really believe that the gospel of grace would have been lost without him if he had not existed with the others. The others were falling back into legalism. Paul salvaged it all and indeed most of the epistles in the New Testament were by him--- I'm glad God saw thru the ages to canonize the epistles that were really the closest to the core of the true gospel. Like it or lump it, most Christian teaching in the Bible comes from Paul.

 

"Jesus Only" Pentecostals also argue that the New Testament talks about people being baptized "in the name of Jesus," but there are only four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5). Further, these passages do not use the same designation in each place (some say "Lord Jesus," other say "Jesus Christ"), indicating that they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply descriptions by Luke. These four descriptions are not to be considered as a substitute for or contradiction of the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to: "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There may be four passages where it mentions baptism in the NAME of Jesus or Jesus Christ, but where in the *BIBLE* did the apostles or anyone baptize in the *TITLES* Father, Son, or Holy Ghost?

Answer: NONE!

Sorry folks, it was changed by the RCC, in 325 AD. Peter had the KEYS and he knew what he was doing, on the Day of Pentecost, when he said to REPENT and be baptized in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. That is the ONLY way that you will ever find it done correctly, in the NT. Can't get around it!

MEE

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ONENESS:
Hey thanks alot for your post. And yes I am United PEntecostal.

Alot of what you said I guess I can see why you guys belive like that, SO I will not knock it as well. As for Me I wish to do the same as you, express my views (Although there are more out there who are alot better than I) and I to stand on the Beliefs of the United Pentecostal Church, And I do not look down upon you.

I do see where you are comeing from in verse 46 about the NAme of Christ. Thanks for showing me that.

Well God bless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Oneness.

I hope that I at least got you to thinking.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by liafailrock:
WPutnam:

Thanks for the lengthy discourse explaining your position, I stand by mine. I have no problem with Peter. However, you seem to be indicating that because Peter was given this power he was a cut about the rest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it is not me but Christ who recognized the leadership of Peter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How do you know that the other apostles did not have some similar blessing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, they did! See Matthew 18:18 where the power to bind and loose is given to the rest of the apostles (Peter receiving it first, and the only one to receive the "keys of the kingdom.) See also John 20:22-23 and explain that to me veeeeeeeery careful, if you will.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Indeed, I believe that all believers will ultimately have the same power and authority as Christ.[/
QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is that in the bible?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[qb]My point is that Peter does not diminish the other apostles' ministries and each one was responsible for spreading the same gospel and therefore they are equally authoritative in the manner of work that God gave to them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because I have a superior, as I did for 30 years in the U.S. Navy, does not "diminish" me, sir. But perhaps did in fact "enhance" me in that my authority flowed from the higher authority above. Same thing with the apostles...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You have your beliefs and I can see that it is directing others to the acceptance of the Pope's authority because of Peter's succession. In a similar manner, I believe the continual succession of the Davidic Throne and even based my web site on it. However, my intent is to show off God's faithfulness, not to promote monarchial worship. Like the apostles, monarchs deserve the respect, but they are not the ultimate authority. I do not embrace nor will I ever embrace Catholic theology, as my opinion of it is that there are too many traditions of men contained therein. I am not necessarily saying that people within that frame are not Christians, I just do not agree with the traditions. You can toot the apostle Peter all you want. That's OK. But I'll toot the Apostle Paul. I really believe that the gospel of grace would have been lost without him if he had not existed with the others. The others were falling back into legalism. Paul salvaged it all and indeed most of the epistles in the New Testament were by him--- I'm glad God saw thru the ages to canonize the epistles that were really the closest to the core of the true gospel. Like it or lump it, most Christian teaching in the Bible comes from Paul.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I am not trying to change your mind, sir, but you least see my side of the issue. I cannot change what you insist on believing - only you can do that with thought, prayer, study and a seeking of the ultimate truth.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MEE:
"Jesus Only" Pentecostals also argue that the New Testament talks about people being baptized "in the name of Jesus," but there are only four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5). Further, these passages do not use the same designation in each place (some say "Lord Jesus," other say "Jesus Christ"), indicating that they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply descriptions by Luke. These four descriptions are not to be considered as a substitute for or contradiction of the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to: "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There may be four passages where it mentions baptism in the NAME of Jesus or Jesus Christ, but where in the *BIBLE* did the apostles or anyone baptize in the *TITLES* Father, Son, or Holy Ghost?

Answer: NONE!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but go back to a link I gave to a previous message and see if you can find something here that dates before AD 325. sir.
http://www.catholic.com/library/trinitarian_baptism.asp

Note the close following of the very command by Christ in Matthew 28:19 where he gives the precise formula for baptism.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry folks, it was changed by the RCC, in 325 AD. Peter had the KEYS and he knew what he was doing, on the Day of Pentecost, when he said to REPENT and be baptized in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. That is the ONLY way that you will ever find it done correctly, in the NT. Can't get around it!

MEE<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AD 325? By who? I see a few early fathers writing about this subject that are far earlier then that date.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

WPutnam:

OK. Let me try to paraphrase some of the Scriptures and put together what we've been discussing all along which may give you better insight as to where I am coming from (besides, I owe you a long discourse). You are indeed a patient person for putting up with the likes of me, although I assure you that my bark is worse than my bite. If you met me in person I would be totally unthreatening and usually likeable to most.

Matthew 16:16-19: "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Peter confessed Jesus as the Son of the Living God in whom Jesus claimed His Father revealed it to him. And because of this Jesus then effectively said, "You are Peter [Rock] because upon this Rock [i.e. Christ Himself ( I Corinthians 10:4)] I will build my church. Was Peter symbolic of The Rock? Yes. Was he a rock? Yes. You see, those born of God take on the same nature because they are also of God. In addition, (as you have recognized) this was given to the other apostles. Peter, the apostles and all believers take on the same nature and authority of Christ. Yet, Christ is the head. How can that be? It can be that way because Paul compared believers to the body of Christ. Each have their position, rank and purpose for the coming Kingdom of God. The body is the body, whether it would be the callus on the foot (the least) or brain (Christ). Hence that is why in Revelation 1:6 it is said, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." The Messianic Psalm 2 is also applicable to believers. Paul goes on to say that we are joint-heirs with Christ and even has the apparent gall to say that we will judge nations and angels (a function most people think is only reserved for God--- only God is higher than the angels.) Mankind (Adam) was created to be thus. For you see, had Adam taken from the tree of life, he would have produced spiritual sons of God. God's Spirit would have been in Adam through that tree of life and indeed that would have been the incarnation the same as Christ. I know, I know. You may have questions regarding the dynamics of it all. I'm not sure of the answers. It did not happen that way. I suppose Adam would have produced offspring the same as Christ. We are made into the image of Christ at the resurrection. Any being begets itself equal to itself. Yet, if Adam were alive today, we'd look up to him being the father of us all (the head) yet we would all be human.

Let's continue in that verse. After that Jesus effectively said, "and because of this, I give to you the authority (keys) of the Kingdom of Heaven with my authority to proclaim the Kingdom of God " And indeed, he launched the gospel on that day of Pentecost. Also, I agree with you that he pioneered so much more because of that confession inspired by the Father. He was given authority to use the power from heaven to the fullest. However, I see this as a WORK (i.e. 'ACTS of the Apostles') where the power of God through the risen Christ would work through Peter. I am unsure how this can be misconstrued as to being given a higher authority over the other apostles. In the eschatological sense, Peter (and the rest of the believers) will be given full power in God's Kingdom at the resurrection. However, I am assuming we are discussing Peter in the flesh. Nevertheless, we shall now go to JOHN 20:23. This proclamation by Christ is an extension to what was already said to Peter in Matthew. "OK Peter. Not only do you have authority for the mighty works of the Kingdom, but you also may proclaim whose sins are retained and whose are forgiven BASED on my atoning work." The crux of the gospel message is saving those who are lost (Jesus came to seek and save that which is lost) who are called as the Firstfruits to rule and reign in the coming Kingdom of God. The message that Peter (and the apostles) was to preach was the message in which one can base their salvation in other words. I do not see a reason to make this more complicated than it is. No apostle, Peter or otherwise, actually has power to forgive sins. They only proclaim it (Mark 2:7). I should be careful here. Once again I am talking about their being in the flesh back when they lived on Earth. When they are in the resurrection with the rest of us, then they will judge (Jesus said they would judge the 12 tribes of Israel) because they will be given the righteousness of Christ. Thus, in the flesh, they merely are the instruments of proclamation of remitting or retaining sins but in an eschatological sense I suppose they have the power to forgive or judge. These gifts can and have been given to believers down through the ages and others have that same authority in the resurrection. Although you have not openly stated this, I am assuming because you are attempting to prove the Lordship of Peter over the other apostles that whoever Peter names as his next successor has the same authority (since Christ gave him the keys of the Kingdom). That, in turn, filters down through the next generation of apostles or popes because each had this same authority. I do not buy that. Remember, God's gift of grace (Spirit) is for "whoever will come". The ones who are chosen by birthright pass down physically from generation to generation. Such are the tribes of Israel and the monarchy. That is because these are human offspring with a carnal lineage and Earthly blessings. Thus, God's offspring in a similar manner goes from generation to generation on whomever he wants to beget. Passing on apostleship human-to-human reeks of the natural lineage to me. You can never be sure that this was the person God chose. And indeed, history confirms some not-so-honorable successors.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry folks, it was changed by the RCC, in 325 AD. Peter had the KEYS and he knew what he was doing, on the Day of Pentecost, when he said to REPENT and be baptized in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. That is the ONLY way that you will ever find it done correctly, in the NT. Can't get around it!
MEE


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AD 325? By who? I see a few early fathers writing about this subject that are far earlier then that date.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

World Book Ency. Vol. 16, Page 7270--But the doctrine of the three in one is cnosidered to be a mystery for which there is not adequate explanation. The first authoritative statement of belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was mde by the earliest *GENERAL COUNCIL of CHURCHES* held at Nice in 325 which also declared the Son to be of equal substance with the Father.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brittanica Ency. Vol. 3, Page 365-366--The triune and trinity formula was not uniformly used from the BEGINNING, and, up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was so wide-spread that Pope Stephen, in OPPOSITION to St. Cyprian, said that baptism in the Name of Christ WAS VALID. But the CATHOLIC MISSIONARIES, by omitting one or more persons of the Trinity when they were baptized, were *ANATHEMATIZED* (or cursed) by the ROMAN CHURCH. Now the formula of Rome is "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, it was changed by the RCC! Sorry Bill, it's not in the Bible. It was developed later by your very own.

MEE

 

Liafailrock replied:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OK. Let me try to paraphrase some of the Scriptures and put together what we've been discussing all along which may give you better insight as to where I am coming from (besides, I owe you a long discourse). You are indeed a patient person for putting up with the likes of me, although I assure you that my bark is worse than my bite. If you met me in person I would be totally unthreatening and usually likeable to most.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm likable too!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Matthew 16:16-19: "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A very "dangerous" piece of scripture for Fundamentalists to quote, I might add…

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Peter confessed Jesus as the Son of the Living God in whom Jesus claimed His Father revealed it to him. And because of this Jesus then effectively said, "You are Peter [Rock] because upon this Rock [i.e. Christ Himself ( I Corinthians 10:4)] I will build my church.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oops, my Bible does not have "i.e., Christ Himself" in it.

There are two "rocks" being spoken of here. They are in the same sentence; the first occurrence being when Simon's name is changed to Peter (Petros is Greek, Kepha in Aramaic, which is the language Christ spoke; the second occurrence comes, almost within the same breath, kepha is spoken again as what the church is to be built upon. The second "kepha" refers back to the first "Kepha," which in Simon now "Peter" (ROCK). Therefore, the church is to be built upon Peter and upon Peter only. The Church is not built upon Christ, the Church is built BY Christ upon Peter.

Take that quote to any English teacher and have him or her parse it for you, and will see that no other conclusion can be made. Use any bible version you wish, even the original Koine Greek, and the conclusion is conclusive - The Church is to be built upon Peter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was Peter symbolic of The Rock? Yes. Was he a rock? Yes. You see, those born of God take on the same nature because they are also of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Non sequitur to the issue, sir. All the wordsmithing in the world will not change the fact that Christ is to build His church upon Peter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In addition, (as you have recognized) this was given to the other apostles. Peter, the apostles and all believers take on the same nature and authority of Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry but I am not following you here. The other apostles, so far as I can tell, were never referred to as "rocks." What I think you are confusing here is the fact that, later on, in Matthew 18:18, Jesus extends the power to "bind and loose," but that does not mean that Christ is building His church upon them in the sense of Matthew 16:18. Also, Peter is given the "keys of the kingdom of heaven," exclusively, and not to the other apostles. Nevertheless, the other apostles do have authority per 18:18, plus what flows from the "keys," through the authority of Peter, and to the others.

I retired with the rank of Commander (0-5) after 30 years in the Navy, therefore, I had authority, but my authority came down to and through me by my superiors, the Captains (0-6) and the Admirals above me. And as such, their authority was greater then mine, just as the authority of the other apostles is lesser then that of Peter, the "Chief of the Apostles."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yet, Christ is the head. How can that be? It can be that way because Paul compared believers to the body of Christ. Each have their position, rank and purpose for the coming Kingdom of God. The body is the body, whether it would be the callus on the foot (the least) or brain (Christ). Hence that is why in Revelation 1:6 it is said, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." The Messianic Psalm 2 is also applicable to believers. Paul goes on to say that we are joint-heirs with Christ and even has the apparent gall to say that we will judge nations and angels (a function most people think is only reserved for God--- only God is higher than the angels.) Mankind (Adam) was created to be thus. For you see, had Adam taken from the tree of life, he would have produced spiritual sons of God. God's Spirit would have been in Adam through that tree of life and indeed that would have been the incarnation the same as Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no question as to who is the ultimate spiritual head of the Church - It's founder, of course, which is Jesus Christ. Even so , Christ made Peter the human earthly head of the Church, just as He know he would spiritually rule from heaven, His "second in command" in charge of the Church here on earth. That is why the pope is called "The Vicar of Christ." If you rebel at the idea, but just consider that Christ set it up that way, and Matthew 16:18-19 is the "Charter Text" that does this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know, I know. You may have questions regarding the dynamics of it all. I'm not sure of the answers. It did not happen that way. I suppose Adam would have produced offspring the same as Christ. We are made into the image of Christ at the resurrection. Any being begets itself equal to itself. Yet, if Adam were alive today, we'd look up to him being the father of us all (the head) yet we would all be human.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure I follow you here, but Christ came because of the fall of man. That we both know and believe.

And your point is…??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let's continue in that verse. After that Jesus effectively said, "and because of this, I give to you the authority (keys) of the Kingdom of Heaven with my authority to proclaim the Kingdom of God "<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My bible does not say "…with my authority to proclaim the Kingdom of God." But I do see that you agree that "keys" is the perfect metaphor for "authority," amplified even in the nest statement, "…whatsoever you bind…loose on earth, is bound…loosed in heaven" (paraphrased) as an example of that authority.

The gospel can be proclaimed through the world without having the authority of the "keys," but there is no doubt that such authority certainly backs up the proclamation of that very gospel. When Peter proclaimed the gospel, authority did not go away with that proclamation! It continued well into the quotes I gave from Acts as to his continuing authority as the "Chief of the Apostles."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And indeed, he launched the gospel on that day of Pentecost. Also, I agree with you that he pioneered so much more because of that confession inspired by the Father. He was given authority to use the power from heaven to the fullest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good! We both agree here…

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, I see this as a WORK (i.e. 'ACTS of the Apostles') where the power of God through the risen Christ would work through Peter. I am unsure how this can be misconstrued as to being given a higher authority over the other apostles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I not give ample evidence from my quotes from Acts as well as that link I gave you as to the understanding, the early fathers had of who Peter was and how his authority continues, not only over the other apostles but the whole Church? Perhaps you need to go back and read them again…

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the eschatological sense, Peter (and the rest of the believers) will be given full power in God's Kingdom at the resurrection. However, I am assuming we are discussing Peter in the flesh.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the evidence I gave, especially in the link I provided, is ample evidence that the primacy of Peter continues well after Pentecost and beyond the proclamation of the gospel.

As to "Peter in the flesh," sure, but I am also extending this to Peter's successors. Do you know who Peter's immediate successor was after he died? It was a guy called Linus. Next after him came Anacletus, followed by Clement (who I briefly dissussed in a previous message, as I recall) and then after him came Evaristus, all the way down to the 256th successor - John Paul II.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Nevertheless, we shall now go to JOHN 20:23. This proclamation by Christ is an extension to what was already said to Peter in Matthew. "OK Peter. Not only do you have authority for the mighty works of the Kingdom, but you also may proclaim whose sins are retained and whose are forgiven BASED on my atoning work."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You read from a strange bible, as all the versions I have say no such a thing. Christ gives an absolute power to forgive the sins of men, or to retain them, period. And besides, Christ does not give this power to Peter only, but to ALL of the apostles! And this is another example of the authority, all of the apostles received from Christ, even as Christ gives the greater authority to Peter in the "keys" and being first to receive the power to "bind and loose."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The crux of the gospel message is saving those who are lost (Jesus came to seek and save that which is lost) who are called as the Firstfruits to rule and reign in the coming Kingdom of God. The message that Peter (and the apostles) was to preach was the message in which one can base their salvation in other words. I do not see a reason to make this more complicated than it is. No apostle, Peter or otherwise, actually has power to forgive sins.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beg to differ, sir. It is you who are making this far more complicated then a simple read of John 20:22-23. But I suspect this is not your own reasoning, but the reasoning of others, which is fine. All of the "others" I rely upon to get the proper sense of that scripture quote comes from the writings of the early fathers, and from the magisterium of Holy Church, a "sense" that was taught as doctrine for nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation without one hint, that I know of, that disputed that doctrine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They only proclaim it (Mark 2:7). I should be careful here. Once again I am talking about their being in the flesh back when they lived on Earth. When they are in the resurrection with the rest of us, then they will judge (Jesus said they would judge the 12 tribes of Israel) because they will be given the righteousness of Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, you must show a relationship between proclaiming the gospel and the out and out stark reality of the power Christ gives to his apostles here. This comes immediately after His resurrection, and when he appeared to them despite the lock doors with, "peace be onto you." And then an astounding action: "He breathed upon them…" (Seen only in Genesis when God breathed life into Adam), followed with '…As the Father sent me, I also send you…" And even before Pentecost, Christ say finally, "…receive the holy Spirit…"

Do you get the feeling, Christ is going to say something very profound here? Why the elaborate preamble if he is only going to say something that simply tells them that they are to "promulgate the gospel"? (Or similar words…)

No, He is giving them the actual power to forgive or retain the sins of others!

Worthiness has nothing to do with it, which did not bother Christ at all, did it? And even poor Peter, the one who betrayed His thrice, receives this power!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thus, in the flesh, they merely are the instruments of proclamation of remitting or retaining sins but in an eschatological sense I suppose they have the power to forgive or judge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are very close to the truth here, sir…

But simply proclaiming the truth does not forgive sins!

Those who receive this truth and believe and are baptised will forgive sins, all sins, from their time of reason go moment of baptism.

But if they sin once again, seriously sin, some time later? (A whole new "bucket of worms" here…)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These gifts can and have been given to believers down through the ages and others have that same authority in the resurrection.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's keep the discussion of those alive and here on earth. John 20:22-23 has nothing to do with the final judgment as how we may participate in the judgment of others at the final judgment. I am speaking of going to my pastor, a priest, and asking him to forgive me of my sins, period. It is called the Sacrament of Reconciliation and whether a priest has this power or not. I insist that the priest does per John 20:22-23, and one of the quotes I initially gave to show the authority given to the Church by Christ.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Although you have not openly stated this, I am assuming because you are attempting to prove the Lordship of Peter over the other apostles that whoever Peter names as his next successor has the same authority (since Christ gave him the keys of the Kingdom).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Matthew 16:22-23 does that, not John 20:22-23, which I gave as an example of authority given to the apostles, including Peter. Also, Peter never named his successor - his successor was elected by others to take his place, and so it was for all of the popes in history.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That, in turn, filters down through the next generation of apostles or popes because each had this same authority. I do not buy that. Remember, God's gift of grace (Spirit) is for "whoever will come". The ones who are chosen by birthright pass down physically from generation to generation. Such are the tribes of Israel and the monarchy. That is because these are human offspring with a carnal lineage and Earthly blessings. Thus, God's offspring in a similar manner goes from generation to generation on whomever he wants to beget. Passing on apostleship human-to-human reeks of the natural lineage to me. You can never be sure that this was the person God chose. And indeed, history confirms some not-so-honorable successors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, you are confusing the grace that Christ give to all Christians, not just priests, bishops and popes. Indeed, I am sure that some popes reside in the lowest place in hell for their misdeeds! On the other hand, there are lay Christians, without any rank in the Church, who have no doubt achieved the highest place in heaven!

Secondly, we believe that the holy Spirit directs who will be elected pope at the next conclave. It is not a "natural lineage" but one of diverse lineage. Who would have thought we would have a Polish pope today? Some speculate that an African Cardinal, a very learned man of deep faith, may be our next pope!

And he is of the same race as my bishop, Bishop John Recard of the diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee, a black man of deep faith and conviction!

Finally, it is a miracle to me that of about six scoundrels we have had as popes, not one of them declared a dogma that was against faith and morals! Strangely, indicating that God has a plan, one pope, a real scoundrel, was a brilliant administrator of the Church for which we can be grateful. Yet I fear for his soul at his death, his personal judgment before the Lord. God knows what he is doing when a pope is elected, even those who are scoundrels in their personal conduct and morals.

Holy Mother Church remains intact despiteher own clergy, sometimes, but on the positive side, of any one scoundrel, there are hundreds of good and holy men and women who are the Church. Note the "Saint" prefixed before the names of about a third of the popes in the list of popes. That should tell you something. Out of about 256 popes, only about 6 of them were scoundrels, and that is a far better record then 1 out of 12 apostles, where one betrayed Our Lord.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.


- The Divine Praises -

 

"MEE" replied, where he previously said:


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry folks, it was changed by the RCC, in 325 AD. Peter had the KEYS and he knew what he was doing, on the Day of Pentecost, when he said to REPENT and be baptized in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. That is the ONLY way that you will ever find it done correctly, in the NT. Can't get around it!
MEE <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


And I previously replied:

AD 325? By who? I see a few early fathers writing about this subject that are far earlier then that date.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>World Book Ency. Vol. 16, Page 7270--But the doctrine of the three in one is cnosidered to be a mystery for which there is not adequate explanation. The first authoritative statement of belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was mde by the earliest *GENERAL COUNCIL of CHURCHES* held at Nice in 325 which also declared the Son to be of equal substance with the Father.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not where a doctrine was "invented," but rather where a doctrine, already believed from the earliest of times in the Church, was defined in the face of a prevailing heresy of the times.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brittanica Ency. Vol. 3, Page 365-366--The triune and trinity formula was not uniformly used from the BEGINNING, and, up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was so wide-spread that Pope Stephen, in OPPOSITION to St. Cyprian, said that baptism in the Name of Christ WAS VALID. But the CATHOLIC MISSIONARIES, by omitting one or more persons of the Trinity when they were baptized, were *ANATHEMATIZED* (or cursed) by the ROMAN CHURCH. Now the formula of Rome is "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nonsense! While there may have been some confusion as to the baptism formula that came to the fore from time to time, the link I gave to the early fathers on this issue, especially the Didache, which is dated to AD 70, destroys this notion!

Secular encyclopedias does not always, I find, give an adequate explanation of how doctrine is defined, the issues surrounding abuses that do crop from time to time, and the very necessity of dogmatic proclamations by the church to correct such errors that may creep in.

Finally, Anathematization by the Church is not a "curse." It is an excommunication which is fully found in scripture in Matthew 18:15-18. Excommunication does not curse anyone to hell, leaving open the possibility of the individual to recant and return to the Church. In fact, today, the act is seldom given, used only as a last resort for the recalcitrant who refuse to return to orthodox teaching. And history will show that many who are excommunication do indeed, return to the fold of the Church.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, it was changed by the RCC! Sorry Bill, it's not in the Bible. It was developed later by your very own.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nonsense again!

Read the links I provided that destroys this notion completely! Sorry MEE…

Read especially, the Didache. (You should be able to find it in Catholic Web sites, such as "New Advent" and others…)

Oh heck, I wil simply quote from it for your reading:

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, it was changed by the RCC! Sorry Bill, it's not in the Bible. It was developed later by your very own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonsense again!

Read the links I provided that destroys this notion completely! Sorry MEE…

Read especially, the Didache. (You should be able to find it in Catholic Web sites, such as "New Advent" and others&#8230

Oh heck, I wil simply quote from it for your reading:

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

God bless,

PAX

Nonesense? You WON'T find the CATHOLIC baptism using the title, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the Bible! As I said, "it was changed by the RCC."

I read the Didache, from your link and that also is not of the Bible, but of the RCC.

Bill, if it's not in the Bible it's not worth the paper that it is written on.

PETER, which had the keys, said on the Day of Pentecost, when the NT Church was born, to.... REPENT, and be BAPTIZED (EVERYONE OF YOU)(and that includes everyone!) in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST for the REMISSION of SINS, and ye shall receive the GIFT of the HOLY GHOST. (Acts 2:38)

No person, on the face of this Earth, has the right to change this commandment and that includes the Catholic Church.

Also, don't forget baptism in the titles IN NOT IN THE BIBLE!

MEE

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MEE:
Nonesense? You WON'T find the CATHOLIC baptism using the title, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the Bible! As I said, "it was changed by the RCC."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try Matthew 28:19...

&lt;&lt;
I read the Didache, from your link and that also is not of the Bible, but of the RCC.

Bill, if it's not in the Bible it's not worth the paper that it is written on.
&gt;&gt;

Ah hah! One whose history stops at the death of John on the island of Patmos, and all further writings are worthless! Did you note the date the Didache is thought be be? AD 70. Why that is practically IN the apostolic era! And if it is "Catholic," you are in heep big trouble!

You see, you have dated the RCC back to AD 70!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PETER, which had the keys, said on the Day of Pentecost, when the NT Church was born, to.... REPENT, and be BAPTIZED (EVERYONE OF YOU)(and that includes everyone!) in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST for the REMISSION of SINS, and ye shall receive the GIFT of the HOLY GHOST. (Acts 2:38)

No person, on the face of this Earth, has the right to change this commandment and that includes the Catholic Church. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Catholic Church didn't. It goes by what Christ commanded in Matthew 28:19...and continued to do for 1500 years with little objection...

So I guess Christ failed to prevent His church for falling into error and indeed, "...the gates of hell did prevail against it." (See Matt. 16:18)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, don't forget baptism in the titles IN NOT IN THE BIBLE!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea what you are talking about!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

WPutnam:

I think we are talking on two different planets here. The list of issues keep getting longer and longer and that drags things out. And no, nobody else is doing the thinking for me. I weigh my sources and came to believe what I do after 25 or so years of putting things together. Although I was raised protestant, many of those churches do not agree with what I teach and I know that the Catholic Church does not for sure. It can be a little lonesome at times, but I take comfort in another such loner... let's see what was that guy's name that wrote most of the Epistles? Yes, that's his name. Paul. The same guy whose apostolic authority was questioned and who bad-mouthed Peter. Thanks for your time and input.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETER, which had the keys, said on the Day of Pentecost, when the NT Church was born, to.... REPENT, and be BAPTIZED (EVERYONE OF YOU)(and that includes everyone!) in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST for the REMISSION of SINS, and ye shall receive the GIFT of the HOLY GHOST. (Acts 2:38)
No person, on the face of this Earth, has the right to change this commandment and that includes the Catholic Church.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Catholic Church didn't. It goes by what Christ commanded in Matthew 28:19...and continued to do for 1500 years with little objection...

So I guess Christ failed to prevent His church for falling into error and indeed, "...the gates of hell did prevail against it." (See Matt. 16:18)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, don't forget baptism in the titles IN NOT IN THE BIBLE!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no idea what you are talking about!

God bless,

PAX

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes Bill, the RCC did change the original water baptism. Peter carried out the commandment in Matthew 28:19 just EXACTLY the way the Lord commanded him to do in Acts 2:38. If you read it you will see that the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ. It stands good today. Never changed, except by the RCC, which is where the Trinity originated.

.....and you say that the Trinity water baptism was continued for 1500 years? What about all of the other years? Were the ones that were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, which Peter got his instructions from our Lord to do so, lost because it wasn't done in the titles given by the RCC?
Also, what about the ones that are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ from the Day of Pentecost until now? Are we lost?

Who said that the RCC was *THE CHRUCH?*

BTW, the Didache sounds like instructions for a good *SHAMPOO.* j/k If it came from the Bible I would not joke about it, but it didn't! I would like to see the look on Peter's face if he read the Didache. One would probaly have to pick him up out of the floor.

As far as you saying, "I have no idea what you are talking about".....I think you do.

There is no use in going on with the subject of water baptism. I think we got off the subject anyway. I said what I *KNOW* and you all say what you think and that is enough for me.

Case closed,
MEE

 

After 10 pages, I am finally closing this topic.

Thank You,

Joseph Botwinick