Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[bbyrd009]

Actually - the above text in RED pretty much says it all . . .

ty

you have no idea how hard that place was to get to!

 

[Stranger]

Sure it does - because you're trying to show a precedent for something that never occurred again in history.
If you were in court - the judge would throw out your sase out for lack of evidence.

PS - It's "moot", not "mute".

No. You are forever the 'wordsmith'. 'You' are trying to show a precedent that due to Rome sending a letter to Corinth, that in some way means Roman primacy. I am saying such a precedent does not exist.

And no, the lack of evidence is on you.

Thanks. Your point is a 'moot' point. Null and void.

Stranger

 

[Davy]

Our Pastor after 20 years of service, retired last year. The new Pastor said, baptism is just water. He claimed, he would baptize us 3, 4, or 5 times...as many times as it took to get it right. Is this even biblical.See, I thought we was to place our faith in the Lord. That God would do as He promised. Getting rebaptized so often by the same Pastor, would make one doubt the Pastor whom was baptizing and also doubt God. Too me, it seemed odd, so my wife and I, went to another church. We took it, that the new Pastor was a false prophet. Thank you for a response..

You are right to question that.

Our baptism by water we are to do because our Lord Jesus set the example for us. The actual baptism it represents is the cleansing of our spirit from the sins past that we commited, and our statement of belief on The Father and His Son Jesus Christ's blood shed upon the cross for the remission of those sins; forgiven and cleansed that no flesh man can give, but only The LORD through His Son. It represents the acceptance of His free Gift of eternal Salvation.

Because that can only be done once spiritually, performing the outward ritual over and over does not make sense, and to me only cheapens the act of coming to Christ Jesus.

After our baptism of water, we are to commune with our Lord Jesus as oft as needed according to Apostle Paul, so holy communion is how we atone to Jesus regarding our sins we may commit in the future.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No. You are forever the 'wordsmith'. 'You' are trying to show a precedent that due to Rome sending a letter to Corinth, that in some way means Roman primacy. I am saying such a precedent does not exist.

And no, the lack of evidence is on you.
Thanks. Your point is a 'moot' point. Null and void.
Stranger

Uhhh - it DOES show a precedent for Roman Primacy.
The Letter of Clement shows the Church in Rome getting involved in the problems of the Church at Corinth.

About a hundred years later, we see the Church at Rome (more specifically, Pope Victor) once again getting involved with the Church in other regions regarding the Quartodecimen Controversy. Pope Victor made a decision that even YOU follow regarding when Christians would celebrate Easter. This type of Papal intervention happened MANY times throughout the centuries.

 

[Stranger]

Uhhh - it DOES show a precedent for Roman Primacy.
The Letter of Clement shows the Church in Rome getting involved in the problems of the Church at Corinth.

About a hundred years later, we see the Church at Rome (more specifically, Pope Victor) once again getting involved with the Church in other regions regarding the Quartodecimen Controversy. Pope Victor made a decision that even YOU follow regarding when Christians would celebrate Easter. This type of Papal intervention happened MANY times throughout the centuries.

No it doesn't. It just shows that Rome wrote a letter to a church with advice and pleading for their obedience to it. Nothing more.

Well, as I have said, the growth of the papacy was a slow march. Some hundred years later they grow somewhat emboldened. Victor gets upset and so 'excommunicates' those who don't agree with the Roman Church over the celebration of Easter. Now that is really something to excommunicate someone for. And, excommunication is just being cut off from Rome. Not God or Jesus Christ.

Of course Roman papal intervention occurred many times throughout the centuries. Rome wants the primacy. And obtained the primacy over many churches. At the same time, many churches rejected Romes power grab. You see it contested here with the Easter controversy. Later the Orthodox churches split from Rome due to their rejection of Papal authority. Later the Protestant churches left Rome due in large part for the same reason.

Rome definitely wants precedents to establish Rome as the leading church. And it will find them, and if they are not there, they will make them up.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

No it doesn't. It just shows that Rome wrote a letter to a church with advice and pleading for their obedience to it. Nothing more.

Well, as I have said, the growth of the papacy was a slow march. Some hundred years later they grow somewhat emboldened. Victor gets upset and so 'excommunicates' those who don't agree with the Roman Church over the celebration of Easter. Now that is really something to excommunicate someone for. And, excommunication is just being cut off from Rome. Not God or Jesus Christ.

Of course Roman papal intervention occurred many times throughout the centuries. Rome wants the primacy. And obtained the primacy over many churches. At the same time, many churches rejected Romes power grab. You see it contested here with the Easter controversy. Later the Orthodox churches split from Rome due to their rejection of Papal authority. Later the Protestant churches left Rome due in large part for the same reason.

Rome definitely wants precedents to establish Rome as the leading church. And it will find them, and if they are not there, they will make them up.

Stranger

And your complete failure to provide another example of one church meddling in the problems of another is noted.

As for excommunication - it is a disciplinary exercise.
If Jesus equates His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5) - then excommunication is separation from Christ.

Keep studying - you'll get there . . .

 

[Stranger]

And your complete failure to provide another example of one church meddling in the problems of another is noted.

As for excommunication - it is a disciplinary exercise.
If Jesus equates His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5) - then excommunication is separation from Christ.

Keep studying - you'll get there . . .

Indeed, the Roman church was 'meddling' in the problems of another. Something Rome loves to do...to establish primacy of the Roman Church.

Excommunication is not excommunication from God or Christ. It is excommunication with the Roman Church. So what? Hallelujah! Being separate from Rome is the best thing a church can hope to be.

Jesus equates Himself with the Church. But that Church is not the Church of Rome. Understand, there are many in the Church of Rome that are part of that Church that Christ is building. But the Church of Rome is not that universal or Catholic Church.

I will keep studying. Iron sharpeneth iron.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Indeed, the Roman church was 'meddling' in the problems of another. Something Rome loves to do...to establish primacy of the Roman Church.

So, I guess you'll just have to declare defeat since you can't show me even ONE other example from history where ANY other church got involved in the problems of another.

That's what I thought . . .

Excommunication is not excommunication from God or Christ. It is excommunication with the Roman Church. So what? Hallelujah! Being separate from Rome is the best thing a church can hope to be.

Jesus equates Himself with the Church. But that Church is not the Church of Rome. Understand, there are many in the Church of Rome that are part of that Church that Christ is building. But the Church of Rome is not that universal or Catholic Church.

I will keep studying. Iron sharpeneth iron.

Stranger

Jesus Equated Himself with His Church (Acts 9:4-5) - and He only established ONE. The Catholic Church was the ONLY one that existed at the time.

He didn't establish YOUR sect or any of the other tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines while ALL claiming to have the "Truth". Those were started by disobedient, prideful men in the 16th century and beyond.

Excommunication from Christ's Church is excommunication from Christ Himself (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

 

[Davy]

Jesus Equated Himself with His Church (Acts 9:4-5) - and He only established ONE. The Catholic Church was the ONLY one that existed at the time.

You just really don't know what you're talking about.

The Roman Church you're talking about didn't even come about until around the 3rd century with the idea of a "pope of popes".

Christianity had already been established in Britain long before the existence of the Roman Church with a pope. Even the representatives of the Roman Church, like Augustine, had to admit the pre-existence of Christianity in Britain when he went to preach there and found bishops in Christ already established there. (anyone interested, look up history about the Culdee Church in Britain).

 

[Stranger]

So, I guess you'll just have to declare defeat since you can't show me even ONE other example from history where ANY other church got involved in the problems of another.

That's what I thought . . .

Jesus Equated Himself with His Church (Acts 9:4-5) - and He only established ONE. The Catholic Church was the ONLY one that existed at the time.

He didn't establish YOUR sect or any of the other tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines while ALL claiming to have the "Truth". Those were started by disobedient, prideful men in the 16th century and beyond.

Excommunication from Christ's Church is excommunication from Christ Himself (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

As I have already said, it doesn't matter if no other church meddled in another churches business. That doesn't prove any supremacy.

As I have already said, yes Jesus equates Himself with His Church. That Church is not the Roman Church. It is every believer in Christ wherever they are found. Some are in the Roman Church, some are not.

None of the verses you gave speak to any excommunication from Christ. Some speak to disciplinary action, but not separation from Christ. And not determined by the Roman Church.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

You just really don't know what you're talking about.

The Roman Church you're talking about didn't even come about until around the 3rd century with the idea of a "pope of popes".

Christianity had already been established in Britain long before the existence of the Roman Church with a pope. Even the representatives of the Roman Church, like Augustine, had to admit the pre-existence of Christianity in Britain when he went to preach there and found bishops in Christ already established there. (anyone interested, look up history about the Culdee Church in Britain).

Nice try - but the fairy tale of the Catholic Church being established in the 3rd or 4th centuries is easily-debunkible.

As for the Culdees - the burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence. Everything I've read about this group dates them only as far back as the Middle Ages.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As I have already said, it doesn't matter if no other church meddled in another churches business. That doesn't prove any supremacy.

As I have already said, yes Jesus equates Himself with His Church. That Church is not the Roman Church. It is every believer in Christ wherever they are found. Some are in the Roman Church, some are not.

None of the verses you gave speak to any excommunication from Christ. Some speak to disciplinary action, but not separation from Christ. And not determined by the Roman Church.

Stranger

Jesus gave His Church Supreme Authority on earth - that WHATEVER it ordained on earth would ALSO be ordained in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

YOUR insistence that it was not the Catholic Church is pathetic because you offer ZERO evidence - just anger and frustration.
Beating your head against the wall isn't going to change history . . .

 

[Stranger]

Jesus gave His Church Supreme Authority on earth - that WHATEVER it ordained on earth would ALSO be ordained in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

YOUR insistence that it was not the Catholic Church is pathetic because you offer ZERO evidence - just anger and frustration.
Beating your head against the wall isn't going to change history . . .

I am not insisting that it was not the Catholic Church. I am insisting that it is not the Roman Church.

The Roman Church is in need of reform, just as the Protestant Church is. You should direct your energy toward that instead of trying to prop up a Roman system that is unscriptural.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

YOUR insistence that it was not the Catholic Church is pathetic because you offer ZERO evidence - just anger and frustration.
Beating your head against the wall isn't going to change history . . .

yes BOL your head must seriously hurt.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am not insisting that it was not the Catholic Church. I am insisting that it is not the Roman Church.

The Roman Church is in need of reform, just as the Protestant Church is. You should direct your energy toward that instead of trying to prop up a Roman system that is unscriptural.

Stranger

And I have challenged you for weeks now to show me proof of this "Roman Church" that only seems to exist in your warped brain.

I asked you to show me the origins of it and to produce an historical document of its founding - or ANY other document, declaration or decree that shows it's beginnings. So far - you have failed miserably at producing anything other than your own opinions.

Unless you can show differently - the Catholic Church of today that is based in the Vatican is the same Catholic Church that Ignatius of Antioch wrote about at the beginning of the 2nd century.

I can show a constant line of succession from then to now.
You can't . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

 

[Stranger]

And I have challenged you for weeks now to show me proof of this "Roman Church" that only seems to exist in your warped brain.

I asked you to show me the origins of it and to produce an historical document of its founding - or ANY other document, declaration or decree that shows it's beginnings. So far - you have failed miserably at producing anything other than your own opinions.

Unless you can show differently - the Catholic Church of today that is based in the Vatican is the same Catholic Church that Ignatius of Antioch wrote about at the beginning of the 2nd century.

I can show a constant line of succession from then to now.
You can't . . .

No one knows who started the Roman church. It is not told us in the book of Acts. It was started before Paul ever got to Rome. (Rom. 1:13)

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

No one knows who started the Roman church. It is not told us in the book of Acts. It was started before Paul ever got to Rome. (Rom. 1:13)

Stranger

But, YOU believe that this is the Catholic Church of today - and is somehow "different" from the would-be "Catholic" Church that you belong to?

 

[Stranger]

But, YOU believe that this is the Catholic Church of today - and is somehow "different" from the would-be "Catholic" Church that you belong to?

I believe that the Roman Church that Paul wrote to is what you and others are calling 'Catholic', yes. And I believe that I as a Christian am part of what I call the Catholic Church which is the universal Church of Jesus Christ, yes.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

But, YOU believe that this is the Catholic Church of today - and is somehow "different" from the would-be "Catholic" Church that you belong to?

gee, how could it possibly be any different, right
lol