Why do you believe the bible?

DHK replied, where I previously said (given in italics):

Read carefully, Matthew 16:19....

"Whatsoever you bind on earth, is bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven." (parapharased)

Now, I certainly do not see a specific claim here that the Catholic Church is given authority to "change the bible," but authority I do see.

So then, sir, how do you reconcile the fact that the Church, in the 3rd century, not only "wrote" the New Testament (her "Charter clergy" in the apostles) but determined the New Testament? Who gave her the authority to exclude, for example, the following "competing" books that were contemporary in those early apostolic times:

Was not the apostles the "first clergy" of the church Christ founded? If so, then take it from Pentecost until the very first schism (The Orthodox in about the 9th century) and see if you can identify the "true church" founded if it is not identical to the same church called the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the only church who can trace her history back to the apostles and to Jesus Christ. No other church comes close at all, finding their origins from a protester bolting away from the original church Christ founded.

We both agree on who wrote the Old Testament, which, at the shed blood on the cross, became a closed covenant, replaced by the new. Other then the obvious bringing over the original Laws of God in the Ten Commandments, the old covenant laws and regulations are fulfilled, closed, no longer effective, replaced by the new covenant - The gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thus you see my emphasis on the New Testament.

Let me clarify one thing about the Old Testament: While it is now a closed covenant, she remains as the "grand old testimony" of God's original contact with humanity, through the "chosen people." But please be mindful that what 2 Peter 3:1 is saying, probably best expressed by a saying I recently encountered:

The Old Testament contains the New Testament hidden; (i.e., in it predictions and prophesy)

The New Testament contains the Old Testament revealed. (Paraphrased from memory.)

This is why the Old Testament remains as scripture in our Christian bibles. And from that grand old testament, we still to this day, read of it's prophets and the beautiful psalms. Yet it remains a closed covenant as to the gospel of Christ as he gave it orally to His apostles. In that gospel, the Old testament is fulfilled in the old covenant it reveals. And looking forward in the mission of the Church, the New Testament documents the Church in it's beginning, and continues in it's influence in authority, alongside of the magisterium of the Church who originally declared the authority of the scripture it canonized, that it continues today.

Agreed, not knowing the intention of your statement here. But please note that it was only Peter who received the "keys of the kingdom" and was indeed, the first to receive the power to "bind and loose." And while we Catholics see this as ample evidence of the primacy, Jesus gives to Peter, we also note the giving of great authority to the rest of the apostles as well. For example, my local bishop has authority over his diocese, which includes my parish. And if I were to be the "disobedient brother" we see in the verses the precede Matthew 18:18, and the matter is "taken to the church," my bishop can exercise his authority against me!

But a guy named John Paul II in Rome has passed to him the "keys of the kingdom" that Peter had, in succession as Bishop of Rome, another topic we can discuss in another thread…

First of all, I see you suffer the same affliction as other bible exegetes do, the misuse of metaphors.

If you were to look at the Matthew 16:19 quote and compare that with Isaiah 22:22, you will see the metaphor of "key" well described, which is the authority that the "keys" in both expressions give. And no, they are not the same "key" in both references - I only refer to the Isaiah quote to indicate the common Jewish understanding the the "key" metaphor as that of authority. Note once again, the "key" metaphor in Matthew 16:19 is not the same key as the Isaiah quote. Yet both are perfect metaphors for authority.

Now, your quote from Luke 11:52 also finds the use of the word "key" as well. (Both my Catholic NAB and NJB has the word as well.) And if we were to continue to claim that this is also a metaphor for authority (which it could be argued that knowledge certainly is), we still have the problem of your assumption that the "key" metaphor here is the same "key" given to Peter! How do you know that?

Does Luke's account come before the events recorded in Matthew 16:19? I attempted to find out, but I don't think it is possible to determine. In any case, If Jesus is called the "cornerstone" that was rejected, does not mean that Peter is the same "rock" Christ names him? See the problem here? Metaphors can be applied to many things and in many ways. If I were to call you the "running steel wall" like I call my grandson, since he is good in knocking over others in defensive football, can I not also call another the same thing without restrictions because I called another the same thing? The "keys" in Matthew 16:19 is not the same "key" in Isaish 22:22 anymore then they are the same "key" in Luke 11:52, yet they are all a metaphoric expression of "authority."

I last said:

Now, take a look at your New Testament and notice the absence of these books! So, my question to you is, if you accept the way your New Testament is, as canonized by the very church you are so suspicious of, then notice the thin ice you stand on when you consider your Bible to be the sole source for your faith, doctrines and moral authority.

This is the closest thing you will get to having "scripture prove scripture."

The problem is, does this include allof what Paul wrote? Does this also include Peter's own writings, let alone that of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? How about the book of Hebrews, which Paul wrote but was not accepted by some of the regional churches in early times? Likewise for the epistle credited to James? Some rejected John's Book of Revelations, whereas, some wanted the didache included as scripture! (Included in that long list I gave a message or two above.) Further, I am sure that the good bishops who attended the synods of the latter 3rd century took Peter's words here seriously that certainly contributed to including the works of Paul, yet we see at least one of his works questioned.

Therefore, the New Testament was not the generally accepted canon that "came naturally" as you seem to think, but required a central authority to determine. Note further, however, that these local synods that began the process of determining the canon of scripture were not {I]Ecumenical[/I] in that it involved the whole church (as at the Councils of Trent, Rome, Vatican I and more contemporarily, Vatican II.) However, the findings of these early local synods found approval by pope at the time, giving authority to their findings…

In a previous exchange, I said:

Christ, while he was with the apostles in the flesh, did not command the apostles to write a thing!

Whew! A very interesting example of eisegesis if I have ever see one!

It says nothing of the kind, sir!

If anything, it reinforces my argument that not only Christ spoke orally, but that the holy Spirit did likewise!

Show me one scrap of scripture to show me where either Christ, or some "words" from the holy Spirit, that commands them to write scripture! Not one whit of such a thing exists, sir!

Now, having said that, I would agree to the assumption that the writing of the New Testament was indeed, a providence of God - that God desired such a thing to be done. But notice how God does this - through the very (gasp!) CHURCH Christ established!

I previously said:

What Christ did was establish a church from which a platform was established therefore the apostles could "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit" per Matthew 28:19.

One hundred local/regional churches who all preached, taught and proclaimed the same gospel!

And in the hundreds, they were all a part of THE CHURCH! Not 100 local churches, or even thousands of churches like we see today, each preaching their "own gospel," but many churches in the One Church, in unity, for the first 1500 years after it's "jump start" at Pentecost (not to mention the Orthodox schism in about the 9th century, but a church that still preached the same gospels, doctrines, and recognized the same Seven Sacraments as the Catholic Church does to this very day!)

I previously said:

No, it was not Peter, but it was on Peter the church was established!

"Garbage," you say? If that is the way you feel about it, then perhaps you should cut-out from your bible, Matthew 16:18-19?

(SIGH!) How many times have I discussed this in this forum? Shall I start over again and do my thing once more? Get the book:

JESUS, PETER & THE KEYS
By Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess,
ISBN: 1-882972-54-6

It totally and completely destroys all Protestant arguments against the Catholic interpretation that Jesus did indeed, establish His church upon Simon, now called "PETER" which means "ROCK." Pay attention to the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, which has no gender rendering of the word "Rock" (kepha) as does the Greek, therefore, Jesus had to say "…I say to you, you are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church…" But even in the Greek rendering the Greek masculine Petros is the same feminine [/I]petras[/I] that means the same thing: Peter is the man Christ builds His church upon!

If you want to pursue this further, I suggest you start a new thread…

I last commented:

Boy, what thin ice you stand on, wanting to pick and choose from scripture what you accept and what you do not accept!

Thank you for the quaint poem, and I don't want to offend you, DHK, but it is the sound of desperation that only comes from the poor guy, standing on a limb, and using a chain saw, he cuts off the limb between himself and the main trunk!

But seriously, I can likewise say, "I trust in Jesus' name." But I also "trust" in His Church, the reason He established it, with the obvious authority He gave to it, and to whom I turn to for doctrines in conflict today.

In 1930, all Protestant churches stood head and shoulders with the Catholic Church in condemning the use of artificial birth control. Today, who stands with her, sir? Not one church! At one time, all churches prohibited a divorce on any grounds (and not to be confused with annulments, which finds that a marriage was null in the first place) but who stands with her today?

You want a "solid rock" to stand on?

I found one in Christ's True Church!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

- The Apostles Creed -

 

Bill,

This part of your post demonstrates why I mentioned the Orthodox in my previous reply regarding the "spiral argument". You and other Roman Catholics consider the Orthodox to be in "schism". However, the Orthodox considers ROME to be in "schism". Since there's no longer the "Undivided Church" who is correct--Rome or the East? How does one know? If one looks at Church History (of which I've been doing a lot lately) I'd have to say history tends to favor the Orthodox--which of course is a whole thread in itself!

I know you don't answer questions followed by questions. I was just pointing out there is more than one claimant to the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". Proving that claim is a different matter.

However, you and I both agree that the Church preceded the New Testament, and Apostolic Tradition (the "kerygma") as delivered from Christ preceded both. Where that leaves me as a Baptist, I'm still trying to sort out. I just wanted to let you know that despite disagreements I may have with you about Rome, I do find that the typical Protestant answer (to how he knows the Bible is God's Word) wanting.

Peace and God Bless.

 

And yet we see Roman Catholics in great numbers publicly advocating the right of a mother to murder her unborn child and Roman Catholics in great numbers divorcing their faithful spouses and living in sin. But where are the excommunications?

The fact is there is plenty of blame to go around. None of the Christian denominations have been faithfully executing the binding key as they should. The last Lutheran excommunication that I am personally aware of occurred over 25 years ago.

 

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae by the very commission of the offense."

They are excommunicated - they have excommunicated themselves.

 

DT and John,

You guys are alright! You both make good points and do so without offending or becoming personal. And for that I commend you. (for what that's worth).

Dt on the point of who is schismatic, as I recollect I thought the RCC had recinded the excommunication, and that the division is more of an unfortunate separation of two validly Apostolic Traditions on important issues, but issues with a varying degree of importance. But I guess that would depend with whom you communicate; what may seem like semantics to one may be essential to the other.

There seem to be remedies available to bridge the differences but how likely they are and where at on the bridge the two meet is still up in the air. My point is I don't think (and I may be wrong,) the RCC considers the Orthodox as being in Schism.

John, -
I think an excommunication pertains to the public teaching of a false doctrine for example, whereas an un-repentent person is shown the error of their ways and yet still remains an advocate of this false and public teaching.
This being a public offense to the Church (if you will) requires a public reaction from the Church. The excommunication then is the public pronouncement of the error and the consequences of that error.

What I think some may be expecting is an automatic penalty of excommunication for serious sin. While it is serious it still is of a private nature and not a public offense to the Body of Christ.
When you think about it the end result is perhaps the same as both individuals are living outside of God's Grace, both have the ability and availability of the Church to repent and receive absolution; yet one's repenting would require a public presentation of dis-avowing their previously held public error. The old adage would apply: A public offense requires a public apology. I think that would be proper as all sin is damaging to the Body of Christ but some could be more damaging given their exposure or attention.
The other is a private confession.
I'm quite sure their can be variations as each circumstance dictates.

Thanks for the fine points,

God bless,

Stephen

 

Stephen,

I think we're in agreement here. My catechism says, "Manifest and inpenitent sinners must be excluded from the congregation." Abortion advocates and persons who are publicly committing adultery fall under that category.

 

Doubting Thomas replied, where I last said (in italics):

If so, then take it from Pentecost until the very first schism (The Orthodox in about the 9th century) and see if you can identify the "true church" founded if it is not identical to the same church called the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the only church who can trace her history back to the apostles and to Jesus Christ. No other church comes close at all, finding their origins from a protester bolting away from the original church Christ founded.

Oh, I know the argument you present here, but actually, it is moot for the subject at hand: That there was only one Church from Pentecost until the Orthodox schism. It is to that one church that the "spiral argument" is applicable.

As to the Orthodox claim, it is my opinion that they stand on thin ice, simply because there was a time when they recognized the authority of the pope in Rome. And for proof, look up the writings of one of the church fathers, St. Clement of Rome, who wrote a Letter to the Corinthians This letter was dated to about A.D. 88 to 97, the life span of Clement.

Who was this St. Clement?

Look into any encyclopedia and note the list of the popes and note the third name listed as a "successor to Peter," (who we consider the first pope). Low and behold, we find that Clement was the Bishop of Rome (and thus the pope) writing to the Corinthians, admonishing them for certain abuses (like Paul had to do earlier in the apostolic age) about matters that certainly were the concern of.........who?........the local bishops in Corinth! Therefore, if all bishops, are equal in authority, including Patriarchs, that the Bishop of Rome is of no greater authority then any bishp, then what in the world is Clement doing "meddling into the affairs" of the Corinthians?

It is my opinion that the bishops of Corinth went to a higher authority, the "Chair of Peter" who chairs the reigning pope to resolve a difficulty! In other words, the Corinthians, who was/is a part of the Eastern Church (now Orthodox) now deny that higher authority of the present Pope (albeit they recognise him as the Bishop of Rome, who they say is "First among equals" in honor, but not in authority.)

But today, the Orthodox would rise up in arms if the present pope attempted to "usurp the authority" of their bishops!

That being said, ask yourself the question; who seperated from who? It becomes a difficult argument to prove, for the Orthodox side, when that part of the Church has the honor of having the Bishop of Rome (and thus is the pope) in residence!

I understand your point, and it is a good one. And I hope my answer above was a good one for you to consider.

I am glad you noticed something I have been trying to point-out to others for years! And your statement here tells me that you have an open mind about the subject. I find that rare, even perhaps with Catholics as well, to have such an open mind in these conferences.

And, by the way, you also convict ME in examining myself as well, as to the "open-mindedness" I may have or not have in my own bias.

Being a convert, I also tend to be very "sot in my ways" in that conviction, thus I must constantly put that conviction on the line with the thought that if I could be persuaded, I must confront the danger of doubt of my own faith.

And that is the danger all apologists face - confronting an apologist that convinces you of his arguments!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila -

 

John Gilmore replied where I last said:

In 1930, all Protestant churches stood head and shoulders with the Catholic Church in condemning the use of artificial birth control. Today, who stands with her, sir? Not one church! At one time, all churches prohibited a divorce on any grounds (and not to be confused with annulments, which finds that a marriage was null in the first place) but who stands with her today?

Which does nothing to abridge the teaching authority of the Church, John! Starting with Judas, an apostle, down through Simon, the Magician, down through the many personalities in the many heresies that have sprung-up, we have always had sinners in the Church.

We still have them, even those who are poor Catholics that I am ashamed of. "Cafeteria" Catholics (who wish to pick and choose the doctrines they like and disregard those they do not like) will have to explain themselves before Almighty God in their judgment!

Not much for me to disagree with you here, John. Please note that I am speaking of the "changeable doctrines" I see in other churches (that revolted me and was one of the reasons I became a Catholic) and not the fact that we have our share of "Catholic sinners" (and I am one of them!) that determines for me in my own mind, the demonstrated unchanging authority of at least one church.

Guess which one I choose to belong too?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

Bill,

Yes, I've read the reference regarding Clement you supplied. I've also read the Protestant AND Orthodox answers to your argument. In fact, I've read there's good evidence that for several decades Rome was NOT governed by only one bishop. Most sources I've read indicate that although the Bishop of Rome had a position of honor in the Church ("first AMONG equals") and his judgement was often appealed to, there was no notion of an infallible Pope who had universal jurisdiction OVER the Church until MUCH, MUCH later. I could say more, but it's time to eat.

Later...

DT

 

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae by the very commission of the offense."

They are excommunicated - they have excommunicated themselves. </font>[/QUOTE]Ron,
You imply that they are only excommunicated by default. This is not Biblical. Deliberate action must be taken on the part of the local church, in accordance with Mat.18:15-20

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.

In the past few years we have had four instances where we have had to discipline members out of our church. It is a very public and for many disturbing matter. To treat one as a heathen and a publican means not to have fellowship with them, not to eat with them, just as the Jews would not go into their houses, but avoid them completely. It was action taken in order to bring them back to repentance. In all the years of being in the Catholic Church I have never seen such action taken, nor have I heard of such action taken since. Only recently have I heard of some action taken when some sex scandals by bishops committing pedophilia over the years were finally caught in the act, and only then it seems as if they are moved to another place. The discipline does not come from a pope (Biblically). All authority is given to the local church to discipline its own members, for the crimes they have committed. Does this happen in Catholic churches? I doubt it. Catholics are not held accountable for their sins. They go to confession. Say a few hail Mary's for their penance, and every thing is hunky-dory again. There is no such thing as church discipline in the Catholic Church.
DHK

 

Doubting Thomas replied:

Of course, infallibility was not defined until later, as was other dogmas, that are implied in scripture as well as universlly believed by the vast majority in the Church. Yet it was nearly the last dogma to be defined. Why? I surmise to simply gather that facts of the fruits of the Church over the hundereds of years, plus the telling evidence that Christ said, about his church, that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

That, of course, refers to the Church, later to be extended when it that rare ands quite narrow occasion where the pope defines doctrine that effects faith and morals, a rare occurrence indeed.

Other then that, the pope is a fallible as the next fellow!

Enjoy your meal!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

I mentioned before "You assume too much." Why?
The Apostolic Church claims the same thing.
The Church of Christ claims the same thing.
Dozens of cults/sects, etc. claim that their heritage comes straight from the Apostles. Why should your claim be any more valid than theirs? I maintain that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century, and had nothing to do with the Apostles. The Catholic Church began with Constantine, when he made "Christianity" a state-religion, with the consequence of paganizing Christianity, and Christianizing paganism.
Baptists maintain that there were in every age, Christians (true Bible believers), holding to the same principles that Baptists do today, though not necessarily called by the name Baptist. In other words there have been Biblical churches in every age since Pentecost outside of the Catholic Church. It has not been due to the Catholics that we have our canon of Scripture, nor a good many other things that the Catholic Church wants to take credit for. I can credit them for entering into Christianity such unbiblical practices as Mariolatry, idolatry, praying to the dead, purgatory, etc--all of which came from paganism.

As I mentioned and explained before the canon of Scripture was determined by the Apostolic community early on near the end of the first century.


[QUOTEThis is why the Old Testament remains as scripture in our Christian bibles. And from that grand old testament, we still to this day, read of it's prophets and the beautiful psalms. Yet it remains a closed covenant as to the gospel of Christ as he gave it orally to His apostles. [/QUOTE]
Christ sometimes spoke orally. When He did, there were men like Matthew to write down what he said and record it. It then became part of the New Testament. What about the Old Testament?

Luke 4:16-21
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
--It is apparent that Jesus taught the Old Testament from a "book" or scroll, not orally. The Scriptures were written down.

(John 5:39 KJV) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
--The Scriptures--those that were written down in the Old Testament, that they could search. They were not something nebulous and oral.

"Please note that it was only Peter..." Obviously not. Every apostle, disciple, believer has the keys (the gospel message) that is able to open the door of salvation. Think about the word key for a minute. You say that "Keys" has to do with authority. I disagree. A key is a tool used to lock or unlock a door. It does not necessarily have to do with authority per se. Often in eastern countries people have servants. They give to their servants the keys to the house. It is the servants duty to lock and unlock the house. He is like a watchman, a servant of his master. But he has the keys. Jesus said I have "the keys of Hell and of death." He alone can open the door of death. I will not die until Christ wants me to die. He has that key. He once gave the key of knowledge to the Pharisees. He has taken it away, and given it to his disciples. I have the key of knowledge (the gospel), so that I can open the door of eternal life by presenting that glorious message of salvation to someone who has never heard it before, and will receive it. I am the servant who bears the key that Christ has given me, as He has given to every Christian to use. It is called the gospel. The command to use it is contained in the Great Commission.

I highly doubt that John Paul II has any key at all. Being saved by one's own good works is not being saved at all. Being saved through Mary is not being saved at all. These are the messages that come from the pope--a good works salvation; a Mariolotry salvation.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "There is no apostolic succession. There was no universal "church." In the third century there were many Bible believing churches that had the Scriptures to guide them. They didn't need a pope."



Here's a personal suggestion for you, "Read history books."

I would suggest beginning with JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines.

 

I do read history books, one's that are not tainted with Catholicism. Shall I give you an example?

It is a very noticeable fact, that the baptismal service, as prescribed in the earliest liturgies, was prepared for Catechumens only. There was no provision for infants. Had infant-baptism been then in existence, the ecclesiastical arrangements would have recognized it, and there would have been a twofold service, as there is now in the Church of England, one for infant, and the other for “those of riper years.”

We have called the period from A.D. 254 to A.D. 604 the “Transition Period,” because, so far as baptism was concerned, and, indeed, in many other particulars which might be adduced if needful, the ecclesiastical system was in a formative state. It was neither one thing nor the other, but a mixture of incongruities. The catechumenical arrangement was founded on the theory of baptism on a personal profession of faith, and so far accorded with the New Testament. But infant-baptism had sprung up in Northern Africa, and was gradually extending itself through the powerful influence of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who wrote largely on the subject. His sheet-anchor in the argument was the supposed efficacy of baptism in removing the defilement of original sin. These two theories were in opposition to each other, for if all candidates for baptism were to become catechumens and receive preparatory instruction, infant-baptism had no place. Yet there it was, daily gaining ground. Augustine’s authority gave it the advantage in the West; but in the East, the baptism of children from three to ten years of age, who could in some sort answer for themselves, lingered much longer. And great numbers followed the example of the Emperor Constantine, who deferred his baptism till the latest possible period, that all his sins might be washed away at once, as he, poor man, vainly imagined they would be, by the administration of the ordinance. Thus we find a great diversity of practice. There was infant-baptism spreading from North Africa—child-baptism prevalent in the East—catechumen-baptism, properly so called, the ordinary mode of admitting converts—and procrastinated-baptism, including such cases as Constantine’s. We see, then, that this period is rightly termed the “Transition Period.”

Baptist Hiistory

DHK

 

Pointers, if you please. </font>[/QUOTE]The PathWay To Heaven

First, YOU MUST ACCEPT THAT YOU ARE A SINNER.

(Romans 3:23) For all have sinned, and come of the glory of God

(Romans 3:10) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.



SECOND, YOU MUST ACCEPT THAT AS A SINNER ,
YOU OWE A PENALTY.

(Romans 6:23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

(Ezekiel 18:4) The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

This death is described in the Bible as the second death, the lake of fire.

(Revelation 20:14) Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.



THIRD, YOU MUST ACCEPT THAT JESUS CHRIST HAS ALREADY PAID
OUR SIN DEBT.

(Romans 5:6) For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

(Hebrews 2:9)....that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

(John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth
in him should not preish, but have everlasting life.

(II Corinthians 5:12) He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him.

It is a fact that Jesus Christ has already paid your sin debt.



FOURTH, YOU MUST ACCEPT BY FAITH WHAT
JESUS CHRIST DID FOR YOU.

(John 3:36) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the
Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

(John 5:24) Verily verily, I say unto you. He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me,
hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemation; but is passed from death unto life

Now, Today why not trust the Lord as your Savior.

(Romans10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mounth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe
in thine heart that God gatg raused him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

(Romans 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the month confession
is made unto salvation.

(Romans 10:13) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

Amen to that, DHK

 

My mother is 81 years old, and she is not a churh. Neither is she the mother of my new birth, nor is anyone or anything the "mother" of my new birth. If you have a mother of your "new birth," I suggest that you are not born again, are not saved, need to read that "Pathway to Heaven," posted above, and get saved, or born again!! And your mother can't do it for you! If this is the nonsense that the pope puts out and believes in, then:
1. No, I don't believe he is saved.
2. He is leading others astray from the truth.
DHK