Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[epostle1]

epostle1

What is it with you Romanists? You are the masters of deception, twisting, and misleading. Your post is riddled with your comments and mine made to look as though they belonged to the other. Do yall have classes you go to that teach this? Do you really think anyone is fooled by it?

It is tough being straight forward when what you are selling is full of holes. I understand. If you want me to respond to you, clean up your response first.

All you have proved in your post to me is that deception is necessary for you to have an 'appearance' of proving your point.

Stranger

The term "Romanist" is a deception in and of itself. If you want me to respond to you, call me "Catholic". Not "Roman Catholic", not "papist" nor any derogatory adjectives you have been accustomed to using over the past 5 centuries.

 

[epostle1]

I did show you, go back and reread.

And I have shown you in Scripture where Peter being called a rock does not mean the Church is built on Peter. And I have shown you one of your own Romanists, Hans Kung, agrees with me.

Peter had no primacy. Never claimed any primacy. Was never shown any primacy. He stumbled along like all the others. Denied the Lord. Used by satan to try and prevent Christ from going the cross. Was rebuked by Paul for his hypocrisy. If anyone should have had any primacy it should have been Paul. But he never claimed it either as he was never given it either. God gave primacy to no man save the Lord Jesus.

Yes, yes, you are the list man. That Peter, James, and John were of the inner circle of the apostles, proves no primacy for any of them. It doens't matter how many times you count the name of Peter in the Bible. He was given no primacy. You can't find it so you have to make it up.

You want a verbatim quote from Scripture that says all born-again believers are part of the universal church. Well give me a verbatim quote from Scripture that Peter is given primacy over the Church. Give me a verbatim quote from Scripture that Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles? Give me a verbatim quote from Scripture that Peter was a bishop of Rome. Give me a verbatim quote from Scripture that Peter was ever even in Rome.

How is Christ statement that, upon Peter's confession and faith He will build His Church, an insult? It is just insulting to you because you want Peter to have the primacy so as Rome can build some sort of primacy over the Catholic Church.

Stranger

I want a verbatim scripture that clearly and explicitly states that all doctrines, beliefs, and practices must be found in scripture to be valid. Good luck with that, you will need it. I keep giving you links on development of doctrine but you keep ignoring them.

Hans Kung is a rebel, a heretic, not well received in Catholic circles; a poor choice if you are looking to score points. Frankly, I'm glad he's dead.

You found ONE rebel theologian who agrees with your opinions, woop-de-do.

x
In looking at the history of the development of Christian doctrine, we see serious problems with the idea that the church went bad and had to be fixed by the Protestant Reformers.

The same church fathers who were consistently teaching the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy were also developing the other foundational doctrines of the Christian faith such as the Trinity, and they were determining the Canon of Scripture. How could they be right about those essential teachings but be wrong about the Papacy?
Development of Doctrine, John Henry Cardinal Newman — North Forest
Please us a larger font, I can't read your non-answer.

 

[bbyrd009]

by being wrong about everything, i guess. By being institutional
(control your own font size, you can blow this up to 500% if you want )

i love the RCC bc it gives us a perfect mirror of the World moving toward God, imo. Now the US maybe has a better mirror in Pentecostalism, but really they aren't much different, great people in either religion, great places to learn the Law, both as good a camp as any, and better than most.

You wanna know how far away we are from HaOlam haBa, you can just come here any time lol, to this thread or one like it, and check to see how the wars (or rumors of wars) are going; the pulse for that is right here.

you don't have to answer my question BoL, see, your not answering is all the answer anyone needs

 

[bbyrd009]

fighting somebody else's lost argument

 

[BreadOfLife]

"The crime which bankrupts men and nations is that of turning aside from one's main purpose to serve a job here and there."
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Seems fitting that you would quote Emerson, who abandoned his Christian faith for paganism of Transcendentalism . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

well that is Christianity and you are a Catholic, bro, apples and oranges. i could back him up with the Book for the rest of the day lol, wouldn't matter to you i guess.

Is everyone not RCC going to hell, or not?
rhetorical Q of course, i know you would never actually answer this,
bc then you would be revealed to yourself.
i doubt you even read the Q

Never fails to amaze me how you constantly repeat this stupidity (in RED) - no matter how many times you are reminded that Catholics were the very FIRST Christians.

And the fact STILL remains that Stranger hasn't provided ONE single verse where Jesus said that ALL born again people were part of the Catholic Church as he falsely claims.

 

[bbyrd009]

Seems fitting that you would quote Emerson, who abandoned his Christian faith for paganism of Transcendentalism . . .

lol, like i expect you to agree with anyone seeking their own salvation

maybe he just got his fill of religion; "abandoned" is an opinion

 

[bbyrd009]

Never fails to amaze me how you constantly repeat this stupidity (in RED) - no matter how many times you are reminded that Catholics were the very FIRST Christians.

And the fact STILL remains that Stranger hasn't provided ONE single verse where Jesus said that ALL born again people were part of the Catholic Church as he falsely claims.

and of course you still do not answer the Q, that i guess you cannot even see, so the opinion comes from an avowed hypocrite too, see.

he was hardly perfect, but coming from a guy that defends psychopaths, see, your comment amounts to praise

really i don't get why you are not either suing the RCC for damages, or at least availing yourself of the counselling set up for the abuse you received at their hands, BoL. They have acknowledged this and been required to set up a trust fund for it even, you get to pick your therapist and everything bro. i wish i had those options

 

[Stranger]

The term "Romanist" is a deception in and of itself. If you want me to respond to you, call me "Catholic". Not "Roman Catholic", not "papist" nor any derogatory adjectives you have been accustomed to using over the past 5 centuries.

Romanist is not a derogatory term. Just means you belong to the Church in Rome. It doesn't matter to me if you respond or not. But if you do, you need to clean up your posts.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

I want a verbatim scripture that clearly and explicitly states that all doctrines, beliefs, and practices must be found in scripture to be valid. Good luck with that, you will need it. I keep giving you links on development of doctrine but you keep ignoring them.

Hans Kung is a rebel, a heretic, not well received in Catholic circles; a poor choice if you are looking to score points. Frankly, I'm glad he's dead.

You found ONE rebel theologian who agrees with your opinions, woop-de-do.

x
In looking at the history of the development of Christian doctrine, we see serious problems with the idea that the church went bad and had to be fixed by the Protestant Reformers.

The same church fathers who were consistently teaching the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy were also developing the other foundational doctrines of the Christian faith such as the Trinity, and they were determining the Canon of Scripture. How could they be right about those essential teachings but be wrong about the Papacy?
Development of Doctrine, John Henry Cardinal Newman — North Forest
Please us a larger font, I can't read your non-answer.

The Church Fathers were just men. How could Peter be so wrong so many times? Because he was just a man, prone to sin and error. Thus we have the Bible to insure our way.

Don't waste your time with links unless you use them as credit to what you have written. If you just give me a link to go and read, forget it. I could just as easy say, here is a good book for you to read. Go read it as it proves what I am saying. Get back with me when you're done.

I'm using the same size font you are. If it's a problem, get some glasses. Or just ignore.



Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

lol, like i expect you to agree with anyone seeking their own salvation

maybe he just got his fill of religion; "abandoned" is an opinion

I don't agree with anyone who thinks that they can find salvation apart from Christ.

As for Emerson - he left Christianity for Transcendentalism.
Look it up yourself - and be careful about who you quote . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

and of course you still do not answer the Q, that i guess you cannot even see, so the opinion comes from an avowed hypocrite too, see.

he was hardly perfect, but coming from a guy that defends psychopaths, see, your comment amounts to praise

really i don't get why you are not either suing the RCC for damages, or at least availing yourself of the counselling set up for the abuse you received at their hands, BoL. They have acknowledged this and been required to set up a trust fund for it even, you get to pick your therapist and everything bro. i wish i had those options

Maybe you should pick up a history book as well as a Bible now and then . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Romanist is not a derogatory term. Just means you belong to the Church in Rome. It doesn't matter to me if you respond or not. But if you do, you need to clean up your posts.

Stranger

So, if somebody belongs to the Church in New York - shoujld they be called "New Yorkist"??
Should the congregants of the Church in Walla Walla Washington be called "Walla Wallaists"?

Can you see how stupid your claim is?
Apparently NOT . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't agree with anyone who thinks that they can find salvation apart from Christ.

you don't agree with anyone, period though BoL.

and no one asked you to define "salvation apart from Christ" anyway wadr; you are like the last person that should even be talking about that imo

As for Emerson - he left Christianity for Transcendentalism.

with guys like you repping it, who could blame him
i mean no offense, but you should be in counselling, not on a forum

 

[bbyrd009]

Maybe you should pick up a history book as well as a Bible now and then . . .

whatever strokes your ego for a minute bro, i forgive you

 

[BreadOfLife]

you don't agree with anyone, period though BoL.

and no one asked you to define "salvation apart from Christ" anyway wadr; you are like the last person that should even be talking about that imo

Another LIE coming from you??
What a shock . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

bye, BoL

 

[BreadOfLife]

whatever strokes your ego for a minute bro, i forgive you

Has nothing to do with MY ego.
When historically and Scripturally bankrupt people like you post falsehoods about things they are completely ignorant about - it's all about their ego . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

bye, BoL

Bye, Emerson - I mean, "bbyrd" . . .

 

[Stranger]

So, if somebody belongs to the Church in New York - shoujld they be called "New Yorkist"??
Should the congregants of the Church in Walla Walla Washington be called "Walla Wallaists"?

Can you see how stupid your claim is?
Apparently NOT . . .

If they belong to the Roman Church in New York they should be called Romanists. Like wise in Walla Walla. If they belong to a Baptist Church in New York, they should be called Baptists. Like wise in Walla Walla.

Both Baptists and Romanist Christians can call themselves Catholic as both are part of the universal Church of Christ. But it's better to use the term Romanist and Baptist due to Rome's demand to be called 'Catholic' only, as if she were the only true church of Christ.

It's not stupid at all. Makes perfect sense.

Stranger