Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[epostle1]

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.

You cannot or will not answer the question. It alone refutes.your position. I am not asking you or anybody else to read a book, just 4 lines from a link provided, with the relevant 4 lines pasted. It's my experience with anti-Catholics they can't read more than 4 lines anyway. Here is the same question:
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?

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

Challenging me to ignore you shows you are afraid of my questions, or you have no answers, just smart mouth quips to hide behind.

 

[epostle1]

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

There is no such thing as a Catholic Church called "Romanist". It's offensive, like your false histories are offensive.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

Actually - your logic is off again.

If I am a "Romanist" because the earthly head of my Church lives in Rome - then a Baptist cannot and should not be called a "Baptist" because they should take on the name of the city where their sect is headquartered.

So, if it's Walla Walla, they a Baptist would be called a "Walla Wallaists", according to your asinine logic.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) originated in Augusta GA, so, according to YOU, they should be called "Agusta-ists".

The same is true for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which is headquartered in Chicago.
They are "Chicagoists".

If you think I sound silly - read YOUR posts, Einstein . . .

 

[Stranger]

You cannot or will not answer the question. It alone refutes.your position. I am not asking you or anybody else to read a book, just 4 lines from a link provided, with the relevant 4 lines pasted. It's my experience with anti-Catholics they can't read more than 4 lines anyway. Here is the same question:
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?

Challenging me to ignore you shows you are afraid of my questions, or you have no answers, just smart mouth quips to hide behind.

I did answer your question. Go back and reread.

You're the one that complained of not being able to see yet are using the same font. I have not ignored you nor am afraid of your comments and questions.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

There is no such thing as a Catholic Church called "Romanist". It's offensive, like your false histories are offensive.

What's offensive is the way the Church of Rome has hijacked the term 'Catholic' and applied it to themselves. They are not Catholic. They are the Church of Rome which is nothing but a part of the greater Catholic Church of which I and every other born-again believer belongs to.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Actually - your logic is off again.

If I am a "Romanist" because the earthly head of my Church lives in Rome - then a Baptist cannot and should not be called a "Baptist" because they should take on the name of the city where their sect is headquartered.

So, if it's Walla Walla, they a Baptist would be called a "Walla Wallaists", according to your asinine logic.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) originated in Augusta GA, so, according to YOU, they should be called "Agusta-ists".

The same is true for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which is headquartered in Chicago.
They are "Chicagoists".

If you think I sound silly - read YOUR posts, Einstein . . .

No matter what city the Baptists dwell in they are called Baptists. Many times they are the 'First Baptist Church of Dallas' or any other city. But still Baptists.

The Church of Rome has no other designation than the Church of Rome, or Romanists. They wrongfully took the designation 'Catholic' to represent themselves, but it does not represent them. The term 'Catholic' represents' the entire Church of Christ. The Roman Church does not represent the entire Church of Christ. They represent the Roman Church.

This took many years to accomplish and once set in, it became accepted, wrongfully so, to call the Roman Church the Catholic Church. But the truth is, she is not. She is Roman to the core. The believers in her are part of the Catholic Church just like I am part of the Catholic Church. Which you want to deny, because Rome wants the power to determine who is part of the universal Church of Christ and who is not, and what the universal Church should believe, and what they should not, and how the universal Church should act,and how they should not.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

No matter what city the Baptists dwell in they are called Baptists. Many times they are the 'First Baptist Church of Dallas' or any other city. But still Baptists.

The Church of Rome has no other designation than the Church of Rome, or Romanists. They wrongfully took the designation 'Catholic' to represent themselves, but it does not represent them. The term 'Catholic' represents' the entire Church of Christ. The Roman Church does not represent the entire Church of Christ. They represent the Roman Church.

This took many years to accomplish and once set in, it became accepted, wrongfully so, to call the Roman Church the Catholic Church. But the truth is, she is not. She is Roman to the core. The believers in her are part of the Catholic Church just like I am part of the Catholic Church. Which you want to deny, because Rome wants the power to determine who is part of the universal Church of Christ and who is not, and what the universal Church should believe, and what they should not, and how the universal Church should act,and how they should not.

Stranger

Don't you ever tire of being caught in lies??

The Catholic Church headquartered in Rom is called . . . wait for it . . . "The Catholic Church".
Unless you can tell me when this Church "wrongfully took" this name or the span of years that this happened - you're just blowin' smoke.

I can't WAIT to read your response, my dishonest friend . . .

 

[Stranger]

Don't you ever tire of being caught in lies??

The Catholic Church headquartered in Rom is called . . . wait for it . . . "The Catholic Church".
Unless you can tell me when this Church "wrongfully took" this name or the span of years that this happened - you're just blowin' smoke.

I can't WAIT to read your response, my dishonest friend . . .

Where in the Scriptures is the Church at Rome called the 'Catholic' Church? I will wait for it.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Where in the Scriptures is the Church at Rome called the 'Catholic' Church? I will wait for it.

Stranger

Where is the Scriptures is the Church in Corinth called the Catholic Church?
Or the Church in Ephesus?
Antioch?
Jerucalem?
Thessalonica?
Sardis?

I'll wait for it . . .

 

[Stranger]

Where is the Scriptures is the Church in Corinth called the Catholic Church?
Or the Church in Ephesus?
Antioch?
Jerucalem?
Thessalonica?
Sardis?

I'll wait for it . . .

Their not. Where in the Scriputres is the Church at Rome called the Catholic Church? Waiting still.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Their not. Where in the Scriputres is the Church at Rome called the Catholic Church? Waiting still.

Stranger

Soooo, the Churches in the cities that listed are NOT Catholic.

Should they be called Corinth-ists??
Sardis-ists??
Thessalonica-ists??
Jerusalem-ists??

And, if not - why not?


Extra credit: Do you know where the Catholic Church gets its name?

 

[Stranger]

Soooo, the Churches in the cities that listed are NOT Catholic.

Should they be called Corinth-ists??
Sardis-ists??
Thessalonica-ists??
Jerusalem-ists??

And, if not - why not?


Extra credit: Do you know where the Catholic Church gets its name?

Those who are members of these churches and are born-again, are members of the Catholic or universal church.

They could be. Or they could be called the Church at Corinth or the Church at Sardis, etc, etc.

For regular credit still. Where in the Scriptures is the Church at Rome called the Catholic Church.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Those who are members of these churches and are born-again, are members of the Catholic or universal church.

They could be. Or they could be called the Church at Corinth or the Church at Sardis, etc, etc.

For regular credit still. Where in the Scriptures is the Church at Rome called the Catholic Church.

Stranger

No Stranger - not until you answer MY question first.
Do you know where the Catholic Church gets its name?

As for the other churches - you failed to answer that as well.
Why isn't the congregation of the Church in Corinth called Corinth-ists??
Or the Church in Sardis called Sardis-ists??
Or the Church in Thessalonica called Thessalonica-ists??
Or the Church in Jerusalem called Jerusalem-ists??

 

[Stranger]

No Stranger - not until you answer MY question first.
Do you know where the Catholic Church gets its name?

As for the other churches - you failed to answer that as well.
Why isn't the congregation of the Church in Corinth called Corinth-ists??
Or the Church in Sardis called Sardis-ists??
Or the Church in Thessalonica called Thessalonica-ists??
Or the Church in Jerusalem called Jerusalem-ists??

" The word 'catholic' (Greek katholikos, 'related to the whole,'general') is not used anywhere in the New Testatment. Nowhere is the 'church' called 'catholic'. The expression 'catholic church' was used for the first time by Ignatius, the bishopo of Antioch, in his letter to the community in Smyrna (8.2). Here 'catholic church' simply means 'the whole church'--as distinct from the indiviudal, local churches. The word denotes a comprehensive, universal church, the reality of which was now being experienced increasingly clearly; later it will be called in Latin the ecclesia catholica or universalis." (The Catholic Church, Hans Kung, Modern Library, 2003, p. 17)

No, I answered your question. Your question was, "Should they be called Corinth-ists" etc.? To which I relplied they could be or it could be called the Church at Corinth or the Corinthian Church. Now you ask Why? Well, I don't know that these churches even exist today. But, let's just assume they do. The reason the term Romanist is applied to those in the Roman Church, is because Rome has developed a specific doctrine unique to itself and then attempts to impose that doctrine on others. Thus when you hear one is a Romanist, it speaks to their being part of the Roman Church and identifying with that doctrine. As messed up as it is. And none of these other churches attempt to do so.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

" The word 'catholic' (Greek katholikos, 'related to the whole,'general') is not used anywhere in the New Testatment. Nowhere is the 'church' called 'catholic'. The expression 'catholic church' was used for the first time by Ignatius, the bishopo of Antioch, in his letter to the community in Smyrna (8.2). Here 'catholic church' simply means 'the whole church'--as distinct from the indiviudal, local churches. The word denotes a comprehensive, universal church, the reality of which was now being experienced increasingly clearly; later it will be called in Latin the ecclesia catholica or universalis." (The Catholic Church, Hans Kung, Modern Library, 2003, p. 17)

No, I answered your question. Your question was, "Should they be called Corinth-ists" etc.? To which I relplied they could be or it could be called the Church at Corinth or the Corinthian Church. Now you ask Why? Well, I don't know that these churches even exist today. But, let's just assume they do. The reason the term Romanist is applied to those in the Roman Church, is because Rome has developed a specific doctrine unique to itself and then attempts to impose that doctrine on others. Thus when you hear one is a Romanist, it speaks to their being part of the Roman Church and identifying with that doctrine. As messed up as it is. And none of these other churches attempt to do so.

Stranger

There is absolutely a Church in Corinth today - so according to YOUR logic, they should be referred to as "Corinthian-ists" and NOT Christian or Catholic.

As for your ridiculous excerpt from Hans Kung - I warned you not to take him seriously, but you didn't listen.

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.

As for Ignatius of Antioch - he isn't the first to call the Church "Catholic". His is the oldest writing in existence that uses that term.
His use of it in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans is evidence that this is a commonly-used title and NOT an anomaly from an obscure letter.

You see - you have to use LOGIC when trying to discern the past . . .

 

[Stranger]

There is absolutely a Church in Corinth today - so according to YOUR logic, they should be referred to as "Corinthian-ists" and NOT Christian or Catholic.

As for your ridiculous excerpt from Hans Kung - I warned you not to take him seriously, but you didn't listen.

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.

As for Ignatius of Antioch - he isn't the first to call the Church "Catholic". His is the oldest writing in existence that uses that term.
His use of it in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans is evidence that this is a commonly-used title and NOT an anomaly from an obscure letter.

You see - you have to use LOGIC when trying to discern the past . . .

Really. So you don't like Hans Kung. And are your credentials greater than his? Here are his.

"To be quit e specific and quite personal,I write as one who was born into a Catholic family, in the little Swiss Catholic town of Sursee, and who went to school in the Catholic city of Lucerne. I then live for seven whole years in Rome in the elite papal Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum and studied philosophy and theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University. When I was ordained priest I celebrated the Eucharist for the first time in S. Peter's and gave my first sermon to a congregation of Swiss Guards.

"After gaining my doctorate in theology at the Institut Catholique in Paris, I worked for two years as a pastor in Lucerne. Then, in 1960, at the age of thirty-two,I became professor of Catholic theology at the University of Tubingen. I took part in the Second Vatican Council, between 1962 and 1965, as an expert nominated by John XXIII, taught in Tubingen for two decades,and founded the Institute for Ecumenical Research, of which I was director.

"In 1979 I then had personal experience of the Inquistion under another pope. My permission to teach was withdrawn by the church, but nevertheless I retained my chair and my institute (which was separated from the Catholic faculty). For two further decades I remained unswervingly faithful to my church in critical loyalty, and to the present day I have remained professor of ecumenical theology and a Catholic priest in good standing."

What you are calling 'logic' to discern the past is nothing but twisting and manipulating and adding a little bs in there and 'wella' there you have it. Not. Now, where in Scripture is the Roman Church called the Catholic Church? Still waiting. Hint, read what Hans Kung wrote in my post #394.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Really. So you don't like Hans Kung. And are your credentials greater than his? Here are his.

"To be quit e specific and quite personal,I write as one who was born into a Catholic family, in the little Swiss Catholic town of Sursee, and who went to school in the Catholic city of Lucerne. I then live for seven whole years in Rome in the elite papal Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum and studied philosophy and theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University. When I was ordained priest I celebrated the Eucharist for the first time in S. Peter's and gave my first sermon to a congregation of Swiss Guards.

"After gaining my doctorate in theology at the Institut Catholique in Paris, I worked for two years as a pastor in Lucerne. Then, in 1960, at the age of thirty-two,I became professor of Catholic theology at the University of Tubingen. I took part in the Second Vatican Council, between 1962 and 1965, as an expert nominated by John XXIII, taught in Tubingen for two decades,and founded the Institute for Ecumenical Research, of which I was director.

"In 1979 I then had personal experience of the Inquistion under another pope. My permission to teach was withdrawn by the church, but nevertheless I retained my chair and my institute (which was separated from the Catholic faculty). For two further decades I remained unswervingly faithful to my church in critical loyalty, and to the present day I have remained professor of ecumenical theology and a Catholic priest in good standing."

What you are calling 'logic' to discern the past is nothing but twisting and manipulating and adding a little bs in there and 'wella' there you have it. Not. Now, where in Scripture is the Roman Church called the Catholic Church? Still waiting. Hint, read what Hans Kung wrote in my post #394.

Stranger

Hans Kung is notorious for being a left-wing, progressive "Catholic". After Vatican II, he moved further and further to the left until he was considered a dissident. He is not even officially allowed to teach Catholic theology because of his rejection of Catholic doctrine.

I obliterated the claim you used from him stating that the term "Catholic" was not in the Bible.
If you don't know who Kung is - then maybe you should stop using him as a source for Catholic theology . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

I obliterated the claim you used from him stating that the term "Catholic" was not in the Bible.

Well it is not....

 

[Stranger]

Hans Kung is notorious for being a left-wing, progressive "Catholic". After Vatican II, he moved further and further to the left until he was considered a dissident. He is not even officially allowed to teach Catholic theology because of his rejection of Catholic doctrine.

I obliterated the claim you used from him stating that the term "Catholic" was not in the Bible.
If you don't know who Kung is - then maybe you should stop using him as a source for Catholic theology . . .

You obliterated nothing. You disagree with and don't like Hans Kung. Again, what are your credentials to comment on the history of the Roman Church? Are they greater than his?

Still waiting for my question to be answered. Where in Scripture is the Roman Church called the Catholic Church. Let's see some more wand waving.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

You obliterated nothing. You disagree with and don't like Hans Kung. Again, what are your credentials to comment on the history of the Roman Church? Are they greater than his?

Still waiting for my question to be answered. Where in Scripture is the Roman Church called the Catholic Church. Let's see some more wand waving.

Stranger

You can deny and hide behind Hans Kung all you want - but I destroyed his position in post #395 by quoting Acts 9:31.
As for your question - I already told you: Nowhere.

And NOWHERE is the Catholic Church called "The Roman Church" in Scripture . . .