-
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!
The next Pope
- Thread starter Ps104_33
- Start date
You tell em' ChurchBoy~
The thing that gets me is how the subject from the pope and Catholic's has swung so fast to the Charsamatic(sp?) people.
Just to get us back on tract the question was posted by Ps104_33 and he asked.........
Given the present geopolitical situation on this globe and the fact that the pope is mainly a political leader, from which nationality should the next pope be? Will he be Italian? Are their any Cardinals of Middle Eastern descent? Just curious.
Just to get us back on tract the question was posted by Ps104_33 and he asked.........
Given the present geopolitical situation on this globe and the fact that the pope is mainly a political leader, from which nationality should the next pope be? Will he be Italian? Are their any Cardinals of Middle Eastern descent? Just curious.
V
violet
Guest
My guess is not Italian... I'm guessing non-European as well... There's an Egyptian and a Lebonese, but they are both too old to be pope or even vote in the conclave.
(I love Google!)
(I love Google!)
tamborine lady
Active Member
Someone sent me a link to more info about Popes the other day, and in reading it, I came across the statement that Catholics believe that Jesus will be their LAST pope!!
Is this true?? I'm not tryng to start trouble, I just would like to hear from someone that knows whether that is true or not!!
Peace,
Tam
tragic_pizza
New Member
Here is the difference Tragic. I don't claim to be Peter, or any other apostle. Neither do I claim to have any of their spiritual gifts or powers that they were given in the first century and have now ceased. If they were present in this day and age they would be demonstrable. But they are not. I gave you but one example. Show me a person who has the true gift of healing--who can heal ALL that will come to him, or who can go up and down the corridors of a hospital and heal ALL that are there (the modern day equivalent). No one today can do that because no one today has the gift of healing. The spiritual gifts have ceased. </font>[/QUOTE]Prove it. From the Bible. I'm waiting.
Why are you so bent against Catholicism, or convinced that, by insisting that Christians treat other Christians with some measure of respect (a quality constantly lacking in your posts) that i am somehow converting to Catholicism?
You're quick to condemn to cultism any theology which isn't lockstep with yours: Pentecostalism and Catholicism are but two examples.
I have answered this question many times already. Either you don't like my answer or don't read my posts, or both. We are called Baptists for a reason--baptism is important. That is a given. But it is not important to salvation. Baptism always, always follows salvation; never precedes it, and never is a part of it. It symbolizes the death of the believer to his old life of sin (thus immersion), and his resurrection to a new life with Christ (Rom.6:3,4). A secondary picture is given in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Either way it is a step of obedience (Mat.28:19,20) commanded by Christ, for the believer after salvation. It has nothing to do with salvation. It cannot impart grace. It cannot wash away sin. It only gets you wet. It is an action that is symbolic. It doesn't impart grace; it imparts water--thus my saying, 'It gets you wet.'</font>[/QUOTE]So baptism gets you wet, but it has some value beyond that, so it doesn't just get you wet.
What about denominations, like the Salvation Army, who do not baptize? Hey, if it only gets you wet, they're OK, right?
Does the truth hurt? I simply point out the similarities between two religions? If you are not a Catholic you have nothing to worry about--unless you like Catholics, also believe in baptismal regeneration. Do you?
Both Hindus and Catholics believe in the same superstition--water washes away sin. That is not only superstition; it is heresy. Only the blood of Christ can wash away your sin. Or do you refuse to believe the Bible on this point?</font>[/QUOTE]Calling my faith, which you have no clue about, equal to Hinduism is an open, blatant, personal attack for which you will never be reprimanded.
It's interesting how quickly you resort to the "h-word." Christian traditions which do put a high importance on baptism as a means of grace can find just as many Bible verses as you can to bolster your position. So who's right: you, because you claim some kind of special Gnosis concerning the value of baptism (again, it just gets you wet but it's really important), or the Catholic Church because they've been successfully getting people wet for a couple thousand years now?
Is a personal attack that for any other person would be immediately reported to the administration (and still might be). For one who complains so incessantly about the "judgemental" posts of others, your hypocritical posts need to be cleaned up, and you need to take the beam out of your own eye.</font>[/QUOTE]It was, and is, a reaction to your open and bitter condemnation of someone who dares to question your infallibility. Calling my faith equivalent to Hinduism is, again, much more damaging than your poor little eyes being exposed to some mean little words.
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DHK:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
No, Mister DHK, I ain't Peter, and niether are you. And there are plenty of people, myself included, that fully believe that God still heals through miraculous means. I realize you're convinced we're all Hellbound. That's life, I suppose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the difference Tragic. I don't claim to be Peter, or any other apostle. Neither do I claim to have any of their spiritual gifts or powers that they were given in the first century and have now ceased. If they were present in this day and age they would be demonstrable. But they are not. I gave you but one example. Show me a person who has the true gift of healing--who can heal ALL that will come to him, or who can go up and down the corridors of a hospital and heal ALL that are there (the modern day equivalent). No one today can do that because no one today has the gift of healing. The spiritual gifts have ceased.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it. From the Bible. I'm waiting.
---------------------
I am not DHK but that one is easy.
Ac 5:12
¶ And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
13
And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.
14
And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)
15
Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
16
There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.
Kindly show us ONE, just ONE man who in the last 1900 years has done that.
In HIS service;
Jim
-----------------------------------------------------------quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DHK:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
No, Mister DHK, I ain't Peter, and niether are you. And there are plenty of people, myself included, that fully believe that God still heals through miraculous means. I realize you're convinced we're all Hellbound. That's life, I suppose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the difference Tragic. I don't claim to be Peter, or any other apostle. Neither do I claim to have any of their spiritual gifts or powers that they were given in the first century and have now ceased. If they were present in this day and age they would be demonstrable. But they are not. I gave you but one example. Show me a person who has the true gift of healing--who can heal ALL that will come to him, or who can go up and down the corridors of a hospital and heal ALL that are there (the modern day equivalent). No one today can do that because no one today has the gift of healing. The spiritual gifts have ceased.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it. From the Bible. I'm waiting.
---------------------
I am not DHK but that one is easy.
Ac 5:12
¶ And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
13
And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.
14
And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)
15
Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
16
There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.
Kindly show us ONE, just ONE man who in the last 1900 years has done that.
In HIS service;
Jim
tragic_pizza
New Member
That doesn't answer the question; in fact, exactly the opposite. Show me where the Bible says that spiritual gifts have ceased. One place. Ceased, not examples of spiritual gifts in action.
I don't have any respect for heresy. I compare all things to the Word of God. Neither Paul nor Christ had respect toward heresy. They condemned it in the strongest of words. Would you defend J.W's, Mormons, Hindus, Islam, etc. Then why are you upset when I expose the heresy of others who hold damnable doctrines?
It is not the religion, per se, it is the doctrine. I can give you a link to a Pentecostal site that I respect. The preacher describes himself as a Bible-believing fundamentalist and doee his best to separate himself from the modern day movement of the Charismatic movement which started at the beginning of the 20th century. He is an old fashioned Pentecostal fundamentalist.
I explained the value that baptism has in detail. Apparently you didn't read my post. Go back and read it again, until you understand the value of Baptism. It does not impart grace, but it will get you wet.
So what about them? I have nothing to do with them? I believe that their doctrine and attitude toward baptism is wrong and that is all there is to it. But this thread is not about the Salvation Army. If you want to start a thread about them go right ahead, but not here.
You really are being silly here. I pointed out to you that the Catholic belief concerning baptism is no different than the Hindu belief of washing away their sin in the holy waters of the Ganges River. There is no difference. Both have the same concept--that water washes away sin. If you have the same concept, then why are you offended? Again I ask: Does the truth hurt? Their are similarities between religions. Do you deny that? This is one area where their beliefs are the same--water washes away sin. It is a superstitious belief that is not taught in the Bible. I gave ample evidence from the Bible that only the blood of Jesus washes away sin. Do you believe that or not?
Christian traditions don't have any authority in my view. I stand upon the Word of God, not tradition. Again, let me remind you that religions such as Hinduism value their traditions. Their is the similarity again. I base my beliefs on the Word of God. The Word of God says that Jesus saves, not baptism. The Word of God says that baptism has no efficacious effect; only the blood of Christ can wash away your sin. The heretical doctrines of the Catholic Church have led more people to Hell than to Heaven. Its damnable doctrines need to be exposed, but of course you are against such Biblicl teachings as that. Perhaps it exposes your own beliefs as well; I don't know. There is nothing "gnostic" about my belief. It is clearly demonstrable in the Word of God. Almost any other Baptist will back me up here. Salvation is not through baptism. It is by faith in Christ, and faith alone.
Then you are a hypocrite aren't you. You have no qualms about personally attacking others, but immediately cry foul if their is the slightest hint of a personal attach against you. That I find reprehensible. The false accusation above is unwarranted. I continue to say that I judge everything according to the Word of God, but never have I claimed infallibility, and you know that very well. So not only is that a false accusation, it is a blatant lie on your part. If my judgement based on God's Word is wrong, then use the Bible to show me where I am wrong. Center your discussion around the Word of God, instead of lying and making personal accusations. I will make the same statement again, and it will be true no matter how offensive it will be to you. If you believe that water washes away sin, then your belief is no different than the Hindus. That is fact; not personal attack. It has to do with Catholic theology, not any one person in particular. I hope you get it this time.
DHK
Charles Meadows
New Member
Tragic,
I agree with you. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that gifts have CEASED. Absolutely nowhere. I would argue that they do not properly exist the way that penetecostals think they do. But the Bible does not rule that out.
I also agree with you on the Christian tolerance issue. None of us has 100% perfect doctrine. Many Christians are trying to turn our faith into Biblical Pharisaism - much to the detriment of witness. I am against legalism and will always be against it because it misrepresents what Christ plainly taught us.
I agree with you. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that gifts have CEASED. Absolutely nowhere. I would argue that they do not properly exist the way that penetecostals think they do. But the Bible does not rule that out.
I also agree with you on the Christian tolerance issue. None of us has 100% perfect doctrine. Many Christians are trying to turn our faith into Biblical Pharisaism - much to the detriment of witness. I am against legalism and will always be against it because it misrepresents what Christ plainly taught us.
tragic_pizza
New Member
I've heard of some cases where some shocking things have been done in the name of miracles - and from people who were invested in the theology. One fellow in the Church of God I used to attend bragged how his grandpa proved his faith by picking up a red-hot potbellied stove barehanded. If you thought of that old scene from the opening credits of "Kung-Fu," I did, too. Then there was the lady who, according to my wifes now-dead aunt, would have (apparently sponatneously) olive oil flow from her palms. I cannot find these kinds of miracles (and I struggle to keep that word out of quotes) in Scripture.
And I am not neccesarily disagreeing with the points that so many of these folks have. The problem is that they are too busy screaming "heresy" and making fun of my screen name to listen and learn and share their beliefs calmly.
You and I and most, I think, on this board can agree that there are some things which are not negotiable (hence the Fundamentals which were, at their inception, meant to bring denominations together). This is the fatal flaw of legalism: nothing is ever enough unless it matches exactly with every point of their own carefully formulated systematic theology.
Theology isn't neccesarily systematic, after all. God is bigger than processes and formulae, and while I may not agree with the minutae, I cannot dismiss out-of-hand any of my brothers and sisters in Christ because they don't get wet enough or have the right ideas about baptism, or think too little or too much of the bread and cup (and then there's wine or grape juice) at Communion, or speak in tongues or who are frightened by tongues... I'm not completely convinced, despite my discomfort with accepted RCC Marian doctrine, that Catholics are sinning when they address Mary.
Whether they are or not, though, isn't my concern, is it? If asked, I am quick to share my opinion, in love, but I am not going to disassociate myself from my Catholic friends because I don't like "praying" to Mary.
I digress, though. I appreciate your kind words of support. I probably do a very bad job of responding to the reams of criticism that folks like DHK heap upon me for daring to have an opinion (one cannot be around a fire without smelling of smoke, it seems). Yet the only way - the Biblical way outlined in John 17, Romans 14-15, 1 John, and countless other Scriptures, is loving tolerance for our Christian brothers and sisters.
tragic_pizza
New Member
You STILL don't get it do you?
I showed you what happened Biblically. Then I asked if that has happened in the last 1900 years. And you want me to show you in the Bible that they ceased?
Look around you man!
In HIS service;
Jim </font>[/QUOTE]The original request, if you'll look back, was for DHK to show me where it says in the Bible that miracles have ceased. You jumped in. So the request still stands, and appeals to incredulity are irrelevant.
James_Newman
New Member
What he means is, since he says they havent ceased, you must prove they have, rather than him producing a verifiable miraculous gift.
tragic_pizza
New Member
Thanks, James. Most exactly, since DHK and, presumably, jim, are adamant in their assertion that their faith is based on Scripture, there must be a Scriptural basis for this idea that miracles have ceased.
Tam
"Someone sent me a link to more info about Popes the other day, and in reading it, I came across the statement that Catholics believe that Jesus will be their LAST pope!!"
"
Yes and no. The holder of the office of pope is basically the representant/seatwarmer/placeholder/steward/vicar of Christ. So when Christ returns the job will ceast to exist and Christ will fill the spot previously occupied by the pope.
"Someone sent me a link to more info about Popes the other day, and in reading it, I came across the statement that Catholics believe that Jesus will be their LAST pope!!"
"
Yes and no. The holder of the office of pope is basically the representant/seatwarmer/placeholder/steward/vicar of Christ. So when Christ returns the job will ceast to exist and Christ will fill the spot previously occupied by the pope.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Agreed. We need to stay on topic. Open a thread on Miracles if you think God can't do them any more.Originally posted by music4Him:
You tell em' ChurchBoy~The thing that gets me is how the subject from the pope and Catholic's has swung so fast to the Charsamatic(sp?) people.
Just to get us back on tract the question was posted by Ps104_33 and he asked.........
Given the present geopolitical situation on this globe and the fact that the pope is mainly a political leader, from which nationality should the next pope be? Will he be Italian? Are their any Cardinals of Middle Eastern descent? Just curious.
It would be good to see it as its own topic.
I believe JPII was a very effective influence for peace and tolerance in the world and that God may have used Him to further the restraint process of Rev 7 -- while God is NOW sealing the saints.
It would be great if the next pope would continue that work of restraint, peace, tolerance -- stomping out the "Liberation Theology Marxist and violence groups" within the RCC by lack of support and censure.
In Christ,
Bob
F
FLMike
Guest
AMEN! </font>[/QUOTE]Amen what? That a billion people are supposedly held in the snare of works salvation (whatever the heck that is!)? That it makes no difference who the next pope is? What is it that's being joyously affirmed here?Originally posted by Lawson-:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
The next pope will still be the head of organisation that holds a billion people in the snare of works salvation
It makes no difference who he is.
AMEN! </font>[/QUOTE]Amen what? That a billion people are supposedly held in the snare of works salvation (whatever the heck that is!)? That it makes no difference who the next pope is? What is it that's being joyously affirmed here? </font>[/QUOTE]No AMEN that everybody is not bowing down saying this man is a great man of God. The pope is the head of an organization that is sending millions of souls to hell. I am just happy someone posted that. Instead of talking about how great the pope was we should be talking about how he was a tool for spreading a false gospel. We should be concentrating on the millions of lost souls we can lead to Christ. Who cares who the next pope is, it makes no difference.Originally posted by FLMike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lawson-:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
The next pope will still be the head of organisation that holds a billion people in the snare of works salvation
It makes no difference who he is.
F
FLMike
Guest
I didn't realize an organization could send souls to hell. I thought only people could send themselves to hell.
And what's this "false gospel" thing. Is "a false gospel" another thing that can send people to hell? Again, I thought only people can send themselves to hell. Is there a percentage of falseness that a gospel must have to send people to hell, or is any gospel not 100% true enough to send people to hell? Now you've got me worried...
Since it makes no difference who the next pope is, I gather you believe either (a) there have been no bad popes, or (b) there have been no good popes. Dare I hazard a guess?
And what's this "false gospel" thing. Is "a false gospel" another thing that can send people to hell? Again, I thought only people can send themselves to hell. Is there a percentage of falseness that a gospel must have to send people to hell, or is any gospel not 100% true enough to send people to hell? Now you've got me worried...
Since it makes no difference who the next pope is, I gather you believe either (a) there have been no bad popes, or (b) there have been no good popes. Dare I hazard a guess?