God alone forgives sins, its that any of us can state to sinner their sins have been forgiven when/if that person receives Jesus as Lord!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Let's see SCRIPTURAL authority for popes, cardinals, etc.
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
- Status
Jesus didn't make Peter "pope" not even Bishop of Rome. The first Baishop of Roame was Linus, installed by Peter and Paul, according to Eusebius.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
You ignored the answer you did get.
To repeat ...
Jesus gave that authority to the actual Apostles and it was linked to the Holy Spirit and their specific APOSTOLIC ministry ... so the authority died with them (just like the authority to add to the Gospels). The Bishop of Rome is not a Jesus appointed Apostle.
Do you know what "NO" means?
I said I'd NOT answer your attempt to move the goal posts further til you provide SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the office of pope. Whe I say "No, I mean "NO"!
You asked me to start this thread, & you'd provide that Scriptural support for pope in it, & all I've seen is a ridiculous attempt to change the thread's theme.
So, put up or shut up !
- Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
- Psalms 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
He is a false bishop and the church of Rome is the harlot church oh the Apocalypse, "drunk with the blood of the saints." 7
Any Greek expert will tell us the Greek word "aphiami", used in John 20:23 meansan action that's already occurred, & it, or its effects, are still ongoing, I. E. "I am eating & have been eating for the last half-hour." So, the apostles were given authority to pronounce sins already forgiven, not to actually forgive sins against God.
And there's not one quark of Scripture authorizing apostolic succession, nor for the offices of pope or cardinal.
Utilyan is full of the same garbage & quackery my mom-in-law's sister was full of. She even went so far as to deny the Inquisition committed murders & once said having the pope was almost as good as having Jesus here!
Notice how he avoids the question of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the RCC's hooey !
Only in your opinion. It has been accepted for a long, long, time that the apostolic authority was passed down from Bishop to Bishop. New sects like yours came up with this idea that it wasn't passed down from generation to generation.
No, he doesn't avoid it, he cited it, but you just refuse to accept his citation. It's part of the Christian tradition - it's how things happened, how the new Christian Church evolved.
Oh of course, we are back to that well worn charge again.
Lets NOTICE then....
Very easy. First lets start with POPE it means "Father".
As I said its just title of endearment. What the POPE is, is Bishop of Rome.
Lets explain Bishop.
EPI = OVER
SKOPOS = SEER
OVERSEER.
Now I will supply scripture for BOTH.
Lets start with Father.
1 Corinthians 4
15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
Paul claims to be their Father. In LATIN, he claims to be their pope. If you went to orthodox churches for example all the priests might be called POPES. Get this through, Pope is another word for FATHER.
Now lets find the office of OVERSEER.
1 Timothy 3
1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
Get this understanding through. BISHOP means OVERSEER.
Two points you need understanding. POPE MEANS FATHER. BISHOP MEANS OVERSEER.
What well worn charge? The fact that the popes use the title Holy, Father and Reverend? or the fact that the Churh of Rome, in its inquisition and other extermination programmes killed millions of servants of Christ. She has said she doesn't persecute saints, only heretics n nd she says she has the perfect right to persecute heretics. She doesn't do that now as she is getting her way through thye apostate churches together movement.
The Roman "church" is like Balak who tried to get Balaam to curse Israel and when they did not suceed, Balaam advised him to send their women to seduce Israel. Israel joined with Moab and wsorshipped thei gods. Just as today, the Churches together have been seduced by Rome into worshipping their gods,
Robycop said
"I agree that the RC is the harlot of Rev. 17, but not that the pope is the beast/antichrist."
The pope is antichrist. He fulfills all scripture references and his self title, vicar of Christ, means exactly the same as antichrist, someone in the place of Christ.
"I agree that the RC is the harlot of Rev. 17, but not that the pope is the beast/antichrist."
The pope is antichrist. He fulfills all scripture references and his self title, vicar of Christ, means exactly the same as antichrist, someone in the place of Christ.
Last edited:
- Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Antichrist will be someone who is not religious, but the papcy fits the False prophet!
Lets start by throwing PAUL, PETER, JOHN. under the bus.
1 Corinthians 4
15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
8“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Also the command is CALL N
NE TEACHER, MASTER, LEADER as well.That means you do not call anyone DOCTOR, MISTER, MISS, MRS, MR.
Lets compare the CHARACTER OF GOD.
Actually your side displays pagan value of human sacrifice. Your idea of God never forgives anyone.
If you owe me a hundred dollars and I forgive you, you owe me nothing. But if you owe me and someone else just pays it for you......I never forgave a thing.
Your idea of GOD is so ticked off he requires SADISTIC SATISFACTION of torturing his son.
Lets not get started with that Gnosticism known as Calvinism.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
On BISHOPS ...
[1 Timothy 3:1-7 NASB] 1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires [to do.] 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 [He must be] one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 [and] not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside [the church,] so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Why does “tradition” directly contradict Apostolic teaching?
Is it really wrong to trust what the Apostles wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit more than traditions added over the following centuries by a church that became as much a political entity as a spiritual one? (That is not a criticism, the fall of Rome left a vacuum that the Church stepped in to fill the need for social order.)
[1 Timothy 3:1-7 NASB] 1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires [to do.] 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 [He must be] one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 [and] not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside [the church,] so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Why does “tradition” directly contradict Apostolic teaching?
Is it really wrong to trust what the Apostles wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit more than traditions added over the following centuries by a church that became as much a political entity as a spiritual one? (That is not a criticism, the fall of Rome left a vacuum that the Church stepped in to fill the need for social order.)
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Yet by Christ’s testimony, God ordained the sadistic torture of His Son (which did occur and was foretold by the prophets). Since God cannot have been ignorant of an event He foretold, was God IMPOTENT to prevent it or just sadistic for a reason other than His Holiness and Divine Justice?
[Mar 8:31 NASB] 31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
[Luk 9:22 NASB] 22 saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day."
[Jhn 10:18 NASB] 18 "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."
None those lines say God had to pour out his wrath on Jesus.
- Status