Salvation Through Baptism ???

[BreadOfLife]

Don't take my word for it. Like I said to Marymoog I say also to you, check out the Greek with someone who reads and understands Greek.

To God Be The Glory

I simply asked you which translation you were using.

I've always been told by Protestants that the KJV is the gold standard when it comes to Greek-to-English translation.
Are you saying that there is a better one?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Usually, one reads what someone says before coming up with an answer that confirms what they are responding to!

Ummmmm, I DID.

YOU said:

A priest is a mediator between man and God. Notice that the New Testament only gives that operation to Jesus Christ, and "overseer" or "pastor" is the concept of a leader in the Church.
There is no human "office" of priest, pope or nun in all of the New Testament.

That's why I told you that you were wrong and showed you the Biblical evidence for it.

 

[JunChosen]

Unless things changed from the last thousand years, I think they can't do that, they have to accept what the hierarchy says it means.

The intent of the word of God DOES NOT CHANGE!!!

 

[Candidus]

Ummmmm, I DID.

YOU said:

That's why I told you that you were wrong and showed you the Biblical evidence for it.

There is no human "office" of priest, pope or nun in all of the New Testament.

You quoted the Old Testament, and your New Testament reference made no point about the "office" of a Priest. Yes, you gave Bible verses. I can do the same... Jesus wept. By doing so, I gave you just what you offered me; a Bible passage that in no way proved anything to do with what I stated.

 

[Tong2020]

Good morning Tong and thank you for your articulate, heart felt response.

I am glad to see that we agree that The Church is "not an individual Christian".

Always glad to be in agreement.

Christ’s prayed for unity and in that prayer he prayed “that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21). The fact is that no matter what one’s definition of “the Church” is, we all know that today Christians are NOT “one” as Christ prayed for.

In the NT times the church that was at Rome and Corinth and Thessalonica and Macedonia and Jerusalem and Galatia and Ephesus and Philippi and at Colosse all taught....or were supposed to teach.... the same doctrine.

We expect of them to believe, teach, preach, preserve, and live a life that is testimony to the same gospel and doctrines of Christ they received from the apostles, and worship God in spirit and truth.

However, a problem arose. Some were practicing/teaching a different doctrine. So the Council of Jerusalem was called to settle that difference. In that Council they, the church leaders, decreed that Gentile Christians did not have to observe the Mosaic Law of the Jews. They sent Barsabbas and Silas with a letter (Acts 15: 22-23) and they were to tell all the other Christian Churches the decision of The Council by word of mouth. They were fulfilling 2 Thessalonians 2:15 by this word of mouth/letter action. The Church leaders decided for every other Christian what they were to believe/practice and it was good to the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28).

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: Notice in vs 22 it says "Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church....". Was the "whole church" (all the Christians alive at that time) present at that meeting Tongo? No, of course not. So according to Scripture when a decision is made on what all Christians are to believe/practice/teach The Church (church leaders) decide what that doctrine will be.

The problem was that there were certain men (most likely to be of the sect of the Pharisees who belong to the church at Jerusalem), who falsely believe and taught the brethren in Antioch that “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” and saying "You must be circumcised and keep the law”, perverting the gospel of Christ. Paul and Barnabas obviously sharply objected to such false teaching, which later turned out to have also been taught in the churches at Syria and Cilicia. Now, why did Paul decided to go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, concerning this matter? It is not for any other reason but that because these men who preached this false teaching have come down from the Jerusalem church, and that since Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, that the church determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem concerning the matter. So, that was not really Paul's idea, but the church's. For how could it be Paul's idea when he is an apostle too? Paul knows the truth and need not learn it from the other apostles or from the church at Jerusalem. But Paul obliged, obviously for the sake of the church who determined their going, and not that he need to hear from them the truth or falsehood of such teaching to know it., nor to determine from them whether he is right or is in error.

The problem really is with the church in Jerusalem, where these men belong to, and wherein belongs some of the sect of the Pharisees who believe and teach such false teachings. What really happened there at the Jerusalem church, is an admission of the error of these men from the church at Jerusalem and the error and falsehood of what they taught, the correction of such. Also to resolve and settle what trouble these men have caused in the other churches, as can be understood in the contents of the letter. As a side, may I ask, are the contents of this letter still holds to all the churches in and around the world, to this present time? Or should the contents of this letter be held by all the churches in and around the world, to this present time?

All that said, I thus object to the position that Acts 15 establishes or teach that the council at Jerusalem is the central governing authority over all the other churches and from which doctrines come from and what to practice. Such can't be seen in the entire acts of the apostles. In my point of view what is said of the church is true for each and every church in every place. In every church in very place, there are leaders and elders, teachers, pastors, and the brethren, each to be members of one another, united as one body whose head is Jesus Christ, but not as one separate from other churches in other places, but one with all in spirit and in truth. The church, locally and globally, at this time that the apostles are no more, goes to their head (Jesus Christ) with regards the truth through the Holy Spirit who speaks to the church today in the scriptures, wherein is found the truth, the teachings and gospel of Jesus Christ that the apostles preached.

Scripture tells us to hold onto sound teaching and sound doctrine so that we can refute those who contradict it. Hold onto what was taught to us by word of mouth or by letter. Timothy was to instruct certain people (in Ephesus) not to teach any different doctrine and Scripture tells us how we are not to be tossed about by every wind of doctrine thru trickery, craftiness and deceitful scheming.(Titus 1:9, Titus, 2:1, 1 Timothy 1:3, 2 Timothy 1:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Ephesians 4:14). Paul told Timothy what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well (2 Timothy 2:2). That, along with Acts 1:25 and Titus 1:5, is biblical support for Apostolic Succession.

I have found the Church spoken of in Scripture that has Apostolic Succession. It was first called Catholic in the year 107AD by Ignatius and in 155AD by Polycarp who were students of the Apostle John. In the year 170 AD in the Muratorian Fragment The Church was called Catholic. In the year 180 AD Irenaeus (a student of the aforementioned Polycarp) wrote, of that great and illustrious Church founded and organized at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul!!!

Yes, by word of mouth or by letter, but not without diligence and examining scriptures if such things taught by mouth or by letter are in keeping and are indeed found and taught in scriptures.

With regards apostolic succession, such belief, doctrine and teaching is nowhere found in scriptures. There is no teaching about apostleship as a matter that could be passed on in any way, shape, or form. The apostles never got commandment on such matter. What they were commanded is to make disciples. So, no apostolic succession, but disciples making.

So, in summary,

I agree with you that Scripture does not specifically name one current denomination as The Church OR as you put it "the church of God". However, according to Scripture, we are to teach ONE doctrine and that ONE doctrine is to come to us from The Church (Church elders) that have been teaching the same thing for 2,000 years thru Apostolic Succession. That Church, according to your own Christian history, is The Catholic Church that has been anchored in Rome since Peter and Paul were there.

The gospel of Christ, the true gospel for that matter, could very well be found in scriptures, which prevails over all other writings or any other so called source of the truth of the gospel. There is no other infallible source, other than scriptures, whose author is God.

I have Scripture and Christian history to back up what I believe. I am sincerely interested in any Scripture and Christian history to back up what you believe. Your theory that The Church, whose head is Jesus Christ the Lord, is vague. ALL churches claim that. What current Church can document Apostolic Succession?

I have only the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to back up what I believe. And they definitely are more than sufficient. I don't put my faith to the writings of men as much as I do in the writings of God in scriptures.

My faith solely is in God ~ the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

Glory be to God!

Tong
R0900

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
As I have noticed, I read about bishops and deacons, elders, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in the church, but how about priests? Are there priest in the church? If so, who are the priests in the church?

The English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Greek "hiereus" : a priest. Greek "presbuteros" : elder.

Consider what scriptures have to say regarding this, to the church, the believers.

Revelations 1:6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

Are there priest in the church? Yes.

Who are the priests in the church? All are.

What are they to do? Proclaim the praises of God.

Who is the high priest in the church? Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Heb.3:1, 4:14, 6:20)

Tong
R0901

 

[Tong2020]

The word Catholic is derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal" which comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole".

And that does not prove that the church has a proper name, more so, make the name of the church, Catholic Church. Nor that that Latin word catholicus or the Greek word katholikos was used in scriptures as the name nor was used to name, the church of the living God. I am afraid I'll will warned again if I pursue the discussion of this here, as I was in post # 1167. So, I will stop with that.

Tong
R0902

 

[Marymog]

You must be reading the Catholic Bible or the catechism???

My Bible states, "shall having been" bound/loose on earth "shall having been" bound/loosed in heaven. The prior action ,you see, is in heaven!!!

Check the Greek or someone who reads Greek if you like! First time you heard it explained this way?

To God Be The Glory

Thank you. I did the research. All the translations I looked at change nothing. They basically all say the same thing. The only caveat with your translation is that Heaven (God) already knows how they (the Church leaders) are going to decide on what to bind or loosen. The Church leaders don't change God's mind. Man just becomes more knowledgeable, thru the Holy Spirit (think Council of Jerusalem decision), on what God wants.

Also, we should look at that passage in context. As you can see vs 19 says Again, I tell you truly that if two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. So, once again, Jesus tells the Apostles God will give them what they ask for. If they ask for something to be bound or loosened it WILL be done for them by The Father!

Which bible do you use that has that translation?

Curious Mary

PS...There is no such thing as a "Catholic bible" so that is such a silly statement you made. Also, since the advent of the printing press and Protestantism The Church has been fighting for ACCURATE translations of Scripture instead allowing heretical translations to corrupt his sheep. Thank God for The Church. Has your church done anything like that?

 

[Marymog]

As a side, may I ask, are the contents of this letter still holds to all the churches in and around the world, to this present time? Or should the contents of this letter be held by all the churches in and around the world, to this present time?

Glory be to God!

Tong
R0900

The decision by the Apostles at The Council of Jerusalem should be held by all Christians in and around the world since their decision was good for the Holy Spirit.

 

[Marymog]

With regards apostolic succession, such belief, doctrine and teaching is nowhere found in scriptures. There is no teaching about apostleship as a matter that could be passed on in any way, shape, or form. The apostles never got commandment on such matter. What they were commanded is to make disciples. So, no apostolic succession, but disciples making.

Glory be to God!

Tong
R0900

You are seriously misguided in your theory. Acts 1:25 CLEARLY SAYS they replaced Judas so someone else could take over his "apostleship". Titus 1:5 CLEARLY show that the Apostles chose certain men to teach what they taught and to succeed them. Those men were then to teach other men what they (The Apostles) have taught. According to your theory, when did this succession of teaching stop Tong??

Did someone teach you your theory or are you self taught?

 

[Marymog]

I have only the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to back up what I believe. And they definitely are more than sufficient. I don't put my faith to the writings of men as much as I do in the writings of God in scriptures.

My faith solely is in God ~ the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

Glory be to God!

Tong
R0900

You put your faith in yourself and your own writings. That is a dangerous place to be.

 

[Marymog]

And that does not prove that the church has a proper name, more so, make the name of the church, Catholic Church. Nor that that Latin word catholicus or the Greek word katholikos was used in scriptures as the name nor was used to name, the church of the living God. I am afraid I'll will warned again if I pursue the discussion of this here, as I was in post # 1167. So, I will stop with that.

Tong
R0902

Historically The Church had to be given a "proper name" because heretical teachings began to pop up and new "churches" with different teachings began. So to distinguish "The Church" from other "churches" they adopted the name "Catholic" which was first used by students of the Apostle. The Church for 2,000 years has always been The Church.....Calling it The Catholic Church changes nothing.

 

[Tong2020]

The decision by the Apostles at The Council of Jerusalem should be held by all Christians in and around the world since their decision was good for the Holy Spirit.

So, I would understand then that the leadership of the Catholic Church which I gather you say you belong to, gives the same instructions to all of you: ...it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Are these the only necessary things you should be doing and none else then is necessary for you to do more than these things?

Curious.

Tong
R0906

 

[Marymog]

Unless things changed from the last thousand years, I think they can't do that, they have to accept what the hierarchy says it means.

Who is in your hierarchy Joseph?

 

[Marymog]

So, I would understand then that the leadership of the Catholic Church which I gather you say you belong to, gives the same instructions to all of you: ...it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Are these the only necessary things you should be doing and none else then is necessary for you to do more than these things?

Curious.

Tong
R0906

No

 

[Tong2020]

You are seriously misguided in your theory. Acts 1:25 CLEARLY SAYS they replaced Judas so someone else could take over his "apostleship". Titus 1:5 CLEARLY show that the Apostles chose certain men to teach what they taught and to succeed them. Those men were then to teach other men what they (The Apostles) have taught. According to your theory, when did this succession of teaching stop Tong??

Did someone teach you your theory or are you self taught?

Acts 1:25 is not succession, not if one force and want it to be. It is the filling in of the place of Judas Iscariot, the false disciple, as his replacement witness with the 11 of Jesus' resurrection. If that is succession, then when an apostle dies, the remaining apostles then should have done the same thing to fill in the place of the apostle who died. But that was not done, not even once, by the apostles.

Titus 1:5, speaks of appointing of elders in the church, but not apostolic succession.

That is according to my reading of scriptures, and was not taught by mouth or writing by any man.

Tong
R0907

 

[Taken]

Salvation Through Baptism ???
OP ^


Salvation BY a heartfelt Confession.

Rom 10:
[10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth Confession is made unto salvation.

Numerous Gifts from God Through Christ, ARE given a man who has made such a Heartful Confession.

Baptism is of the Holy Spirit, and is ONE of the Gifts.

Acts 2:
[38] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Tong2020]

You put your faith in yourself and your own writings. That is a dangerous place to be.

And that clearly is either a misrepresentation or a false accusation.

Never did I say that I put my faith in myself and my writings.

This is what I said and I quote:

"I have only the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to back up what I believe. And they definitely are more than sufficient. I don't put my faith to the writings of men as much as I do in the writings of God in scriptures.

My faith solely is in God ~ the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit."

If that is a dangerous place to be, I don't have any regrets and is happy even to be in such place, for I know that it gives glory not to any man, but to God.

Tong
R0908

 

[Marymog]

Acts 1:25 is not succession, not if one force and want it to be. It is the filling in of the place of Judas Iscariot, the false disciple, as his replacement witness with the 11 of Jesus' resurrection. If that is succession, then when an apostle dies, the remaining apostles then should have done the same thing to fill in the place of the apostle who died. But that was not done, not even once, by the apostles.

Titus 1:5, speaks of appointing of elders in the church, but not apostolic succession.

That is according to my reading of scriptures, and was not taught by mouth or writing by any man.

Tong
R0907

Ummmm.....didn't you just teach (write) according to YOUR "reading of scriptures"? Can you not see the fallacy of your theory?

You believe what YOU write is true and what others write is false.....simply fascinating!

Thank you for your time.

 

[Marymog]

.

My faith solely is in God ~ the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit."


Tong
R0908

And the faith of the men who teach opposite of you is not solely in God? YOU are right and they are wrong? Fascinating....