ABOUT BAPTISM

[Dave L]

As I told you before - that is a LIE.
I just got done comparing the 2 passages in Scripture for you:
the Prophecy from the OT (Ezek. 36:25-27) and the Fulfillment from the NT (John 3:5).

Either you're really dense - or you're simply being dishonest again.

And what part of PROPHECY do you not understand??
Ezekiel 36:22-27 doesn't pertain the the Mosaic Law - it is a PROPHECY about Baptism.

Besides, Einstein - the NT didn't "replace" the OT - it FULFILLED it.
That's the whole purpose of prophecy . . .

As I said, you have zero direct quotes from scripture. Only your denominational ball and chain interpretations to go by.

 

[BreadOfLife]

yes and you are the evidence of that, the difference is that we believe to salvation, they cant.

Without obedience, you cannot HOPE to be saved (Matt 7:21, 25:31-46, James 2:19) . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

As I said, you have zero direct quotes from scripture. Only your denominational ball and chain interpretations to go by.

If the prophecy about the Baptism of WATER and SPIRIT in Ezekiel 36:25-27 and the fulfillment in John 3:5 is a denominational "ball and chain" to you - then you’re more BLIND than I thought . . .

 

[Dave L]

If the prophecy about the Baptism of WATER and SPIRIT in Ezekiel 36:25-27 and the fulfillment in John 3:5 is a denominational "ball and chain" to you - then you’re more BLIND than I thought . . .

You are reading into the passage your denominational bias.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are reading into the passage your denominational bias.

No - I am simply READING the passage.
It is blindingly clear that Jesus is telling Nicodemus what Ezekiel prophesied about Baptism.

It is YOUR denominational bias that is blinding you to this reality . . .

 

[Dave L]

No - I am simply READING the passage.
It is blindingly clear that Jesus is telling Nicodemus what Ezekiel prophesied about Baptism.

It is YOUR denominational bias that is blinding you to this reality . . .

I have no denomination. But I visit most from time to time and have learned much from many denominations.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have no denomination. But I visit most from time to time and have learned much from many denominations.

And neither do I belong to any denomination.
The Catholic Church is the Original Tree from which Protestantism splintered into factions - NOT the other way around . . .

 

[Dave L]

And neither do I belong to any denomination.
The Catholic Church is the Original Tree from which Protestantism splintered into factions - NOT the other way around . . .

We always had a presence apart from the Institutional Churches. Still do.

 

[BreadOfLife]

We always had a presence apart from the Institutional Churches. Still do.

You NEVER did until the 16th century . . .

 

[Dave L]

You NEVER did until the 16th century . . .

The church in Acts met in houses mainly, and this continues even until today.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The church in Acts met in houses mainly, and this continues even until today.

The Church in Acts was the CATHOLIC CHURCH . . .

Acts 9:31 talks about how the Early Church grew throughout the region. The language used here describes the Catholic Church:

“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”

According to Strong’s Greek Concordance – the verse is translated as:
“The true Church throughout all Judea . . .”

Here is the phrase in Greek:
η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας

The Catholic Church gets its name from the GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “ekklesia katah-holos”.

Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly; CHURCH
Καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
Ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely

"Ekklesia Kata-holos" = CATHOLIC CHURCH

 

[epostle]

We always had a presence apart from the Institutional Churches. Still do.

If you "always had a presence apart from the Institutional Churches", but have no evidence and no names, then you are asserting a belief based on theory with no supporting facts.

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focussed on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Peter1:1; 5:1)

In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles.
The Early Papacy - 2 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

 

[farouk]

If you "always had a presence apart from the Institutional Churches", but have no evidence and no names, then you are asserting a belief based on theory with no supporting facts.

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focussed on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Peter1:1; 5:1)

In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles.
The Early Papacy - 2 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

The simplicity of Acts 2.41-42 needs no institutional "apostolic succession" to be viable today.

 

[Dave L]

If you "always had a presence apart from the Institutional Churches", but have no evidence and no names, then you are asserting a belief based on theory with no supporting facts.

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focussed on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Peter1:1; 5:1)

In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles.
The Early Papacy - 2 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Your ignorance does not mean independent churches did not exist. The monarchical bishops that morphed into the Institutional Churches didn't come with New Testament teaching. In the NT pastor, elder, bishop are synonyms.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your ignorance does not mean independent churches did not exist. The monarchical bishops that morphed into the Institutional Churches didn't come with New Testament teaching. In the NT pastor, elder, bishop are synonyms.

As usual – your ignorance precedes you . . .

A Bishop or overseer in Scripture is:
ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos)
This is where the English word “Bishop” comes from

An Elder is:
πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous)
This is where the English word “Priest” comes from

I suggest you take some time off from this forum and – do your homework. Before posting again.
This is embarrassing . . .

 

[Dave L]

As usual – your ignorance precedes you . . .

A Bishop or overseer in Scripture is:
ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos)
This is where the English word “Bishop” comes from

An Elder is:
πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous)
This is where the English word “Priest” comes from

I suggest you take some time off from this forum and – do your homework. Before posting again.
This is embarrassing . . .

Elder, Pastor, and Bishop are synonyms in the NT.

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers [bishops], to feed [shepherd] the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28) (KJV 1900)

 

[farouk]

There is no James 14:26 or 4:26, unless it's written in a Catholic Bible!

Maybe the ref. is incorrect?

 

[epostle]

The simplicity of Acts 2.41-42 needs no institutional "apostolic succession" to be viable today.

Acts 2.41-42 has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession. We have to agree what "Apostolic Succession" means, because I suspect your definition is altered.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Elder, Pastor, and Bishop are synonyms in the NT.

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers [bishops], to feed [shepherd] the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28) (KJV 1900)

WRONG - and I've already proven you wrong on this point.

Apparently, you are a glutton for punishment - so I will now give you an etymological spanking to go with the Scriptural spanking I gave you earlier . . .

priest | Origin and meaning of priest by Online Etymology Dictionary
priest (n.)
Old English preost, which probably was shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros.

bishop | Origin and meaning of bishop by Online Etymology Dictionary
bishop (n.)
Old English bisceop "bishop, high priest," from Late Latin episcopus, from Greek episkopos "watcher, (spiritual) overseer," a title for various government officials, later taken over in a Church sense, from epi- "over" (see epi-) + skopos "one that watches, one that looks after; a guardian, protector" (from PIE root *spek- "to observe").

Episkopos and Presbyteros are NOT synonyms, Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Maybe the ref. is incorrect?

I already corrected this way back in post #7.
It is James 2:14-26.