Salvation Through Baptism ???

[Tong2020]

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.

Why do you think that the church had to be given a "proper name", when God had not? Jesus did not. The apostles, even at a time where heretical teachings did pop up, did not. The Holy Spirit also did not. And to just try to reason here, if any new "churches" come up having "proper names", there was no need for the church to be given a "proper name", for it being without, is better off than giving it one, which is obviously how it was in the wisdom of God. And as I said in my past post, if there be anything that identifies the church today, it is not by what name someone called it by, but by the spirit, doctrine or teachings and the gospel they preach.

You said "The Church for 2,000 years has always been The Church.....Calling it The Catholic Church changes nothing." That is, if at all the Catholic Church was the church spoken of in the NT scriptures. But that is not certain at all. While to your POV, calling the church by a name such as Catholic Church changes nothing, that is not necessarily without negative effect. For I think that there are not a few who thinks that if the church had a name, it should be one that clearly identifies the church as that of Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, the truth is, the church was not called by a "proper name" in scriptures, nor there was commandment to give it a name, any name for that matter. To insist that the name of the church is so and so, is a futile exercise and really proves nothing.

Tong
R0909

 

[Tong2020]

No

Then that would be in violation to the letter. That's interesting, since you said "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." And here you say no, in contradiction to the intent written out in the letter, that is, "to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things". Well,....just pointing out.

Tong
R0910

 

[Marymog]

Why do you think that the church had to be given a "proper name", when God had not? Jesus did not. The apostles, even at a time where heretical teachings did pop up, did not. The Holy Spirit also did not. And to just try to reason here, if any new "churches" come up having "proper names", there was no need for the church to be given a "proper name", for it being without, is better off than giving it one, which is obviously how it was in the wisdom of God. And as I said in my past post, if there be anything that identifies the church today, it is not by what name someone called it by, but by the spirit, doctrine or teachings and the gospel they preach.

You said "The Church for 2,000 years has always been The Church.....Calling it The Catholic Church changes nothing." That is, if at all the Catholic Church was the church spoken of in the NT scriptures. But that is not certain at all. While to your POV, calling the church by a name such as Catholic Church changes nothing, that is not necessarily without negative effect. For I think that there are not a few who thinks that if the church had a name, it should be one that clearly identifies the church as that of Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, the truth is, the church was not called by a "proper name" in scriptures, nor there was commandment to give it a name, any name for that matter. To insist that the name of the church is so and so, is a futile exercise and really proves nothing.

Tong
R0909

You like to teach a lot (write a lot of words) but not answer questions. When you answer my legitimate questions AND start backing up what you teach with Scripture or Christian history, which is the writings of men (some who were students of the Apostles) whom you disagree with, then I will talk to you. I believe the writings of the men who were students of the Apostles. I don't believe the writings of the man Tong!

Before you ask me what questions you haven't answered.... go back and look...I'm not doing that for you.

 

[Marymog]

Then that would be in violation to the letter. That's interesting, since you said "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." And here you say no, in contradiction to the intent written out in the letter, that is, "to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things". Well,....just pointing out.

Tong
R0910

I do not understand what you are saying and it seems you have misconstrued my answer.

 

[Tong2020]

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.

Not really teaching, but sharing by writing out (as the medium of communication here is writing). And of course, as it would be true of most, that what I write, I believe to be correct. Otherwise, I would not have written it.

Thank you for your time as well.

Tong
R0911

 

[Tong2020]

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

Nothing like that is implied. It's simply a personal confession that My faith solely is in God ~ the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit."

Tong
R0912

 

[Tong2020]

You like to teach a lot (write a lot of words) but not answer questions. When you answer my legitimate questions AND start backing up what you teach with Scripture or Christian history, which is the writings of men (some who were students of the Apostles) whom you disagree with, then I will talk to you. I believe the writings of the men who were students of the Apostles. I don't believe the writings of the man Tong!

Before you ask me what questions you haven't answered.... go back and look...I'm not doing that for you.

Backing up what I teach with scriptures? I only refer to scriptures, before anything else. I seldom, if at all, refer to writings of men other than what inspired writers of scriptures wrote.

If you believe the writings of men in addition to the writings of the inspired writers of scriptures, that's any one's right and choice. Now, if you use their writing to defend scriptures or what you believe, and ask me questions about their writing, and expect me to give you an answer, well I am sorry to say I could not. I am not having a dialogue with them but with you. Would you be forcing it to me to read what they wrote? I'd rather read scriptures my friend. Time is precious.

Tong
R0913

 

[Tong2020]

I do not understand what you are saying and it seems you have misconstrued my answer.

You can follow the links (click the arrow up symbols) that go backwards and find out.

Tong
R0914

 

[JunChosen]

@Marymog, and @Tong,

Both of you have been reprimanded by Heart2Soul (staff member) and I quote: "Please stay on topic....start a thread about Catholic Bibles or English Translations if you want to continue this discussion".
Thanks

But both of you are displaying the spirit of non-compliance.

After all what has been said, the bottom line is this: the word "catholic" means "universal." that is all the churches in the world belongs to one church, the church of Jesus Christ.

Scripture declares in Luke 9:49-50: "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not with us.
50) And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

The above passages I believe is the crux regarding the "church" as being universal.

To God Be The Glory

 

[BreadOfLife]

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.

No – I gave you OT Type and NT Fulfillment.

I listed the types of priesthood in the OT that were fulfilled in the NT;
The High Priest
Jesus, our High Priest

The Levitical Priesthood
The Ministerial Priesthood

The General Priesthood of the Jewish people
The General Priesthood of Christians

I gave you the Scriptural evidence for each.
For example – the Ministerial Priesthood in the NT is beautifully illustrated in the Epistle of James, where he describes what to do with sick and dying people:

James 15:13-15
Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, HE WILL BE FORGIVEN.

All I can do is to show you the Biblical parallels – I can’t make you believe them.

 

[BreadOfLife]

@Marymog, and @Tong,

Both of you have been reprimanded by Heart2Soul (staff member) and I quote: "Please stay on topic....start a thread about Catholic Bibles or English Translations if you want to continue this discussion".
Thanks

But both of you are displaying the spirit of non-compliance.

After all what has been said, the bottom line is this: the word "catholic" means "universal." that is all the churches in the world belongs to one church, the church of Jesus Christ.

Scripture declares in Luke 9:49-50: "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not with us.
50) And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

The above passages I believe is the crux regarding the "church" as being universal.

To God Be The Glory

And there is nothing “universal” about tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering Protestant sects teaching different doctrines. How does that illustrate a “Universal” Church?

Before the 16th century – the Church WAS doctrinally universal – not divided into splintered factions.

 

[Illuminator]

It's almost humorous, watching divided Protestantism struggling to justify the 'reformers' abolishment of the sacrificial NT priesthood, denials of historical facts, and twisting Scripture.
Satanists, anarchists, communists, the corrupt BLM movement have targeted Catholic church property at an alarming rate, and its global in scope, and under-reported by main stream media. Strange how this intensity of persecution is not railed against Protestant churches to the same degree.

This astonishing drop in respect for persons and property is the direct result of a culture turned against itself. The grievance culture is literally eating away at the social fabric. Charges of racism are everywhere, the effect of which is to dilute serious expressions of it. Claiming victim status is chic and pointing fingers is the latest fad.

This kind of cultural madness will continue until and unless political and cultural leaders insist on respect for human life and the heritage of Western civilization. Unfortunately, “The Summer of Hate” has a long way to go.​

"THE SUMMER OF HATE" CONTINUES UNABATED

The proverbial "vandalizing" against the historic Church is expressed in forums like this one. A cog in the wheel of a civilization bent on destroying itself.

 

[JunChosen]

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.

Romans 10 must be read in light of Jeremiah 17:9.

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

Scripture speaks of two baptisms physical (water) and spiritual. Which baptism you do think saves?

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.

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, is NOT speaking of water baptism.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Pearl]

First you recognise that you are a sinner. Then you repent and receive salvation. And then you get baptised. Simples!

 

[JunChosen]

[QUOTE="BreadOfLife, post: 802071, member: 7345"]Before the 16th century – the Church WAS doctrinally universal – not divided into splintered factions.[/QUOTE]

So now you have the task of sorting out which church is for or against God.

Good luck with that.

To God Be The Glory

 

[JunChosen]

First you recognise that you are a sinner. Then you repent and receive salvation. And then you get baptised. Simples!

How do you do the above seeing there is no one, no, not one that seeks after God?

To God Be The Glory

 

[Marymog]

@Marymog, and @Tong,

Both of you have been reprimanded by Heart2Soul (staff member) and I quote: "Please stay on topic....start a thread about Catholic Bibles or English Translations if you want to continue this discussion".
Thanks

Not true. Post #1167 was to Tong, not me.

I have NOT gotten into any deep discussion about translations. Only mentioned it fleetingly.

 

[Marymog]

After all what has been said, the bottom line is this: the word "catholic" means "universal." that is all the churches in the world belongs to one church, the church of Jesus Christ.

Scripture declares in Luke 9:49-50:[B] "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not with us.
50) And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."[/B]

The above passages I believe is the crux regarding the "church" as being universal.

To God Be The Glory

The person they saw casting out devils in Jesus name was forbade by the Apostles to do that since he was not a follower of Christ. [B]That passage shows that there is grace outside The Church.[/B]

I wonder what would have happened with that fella if they, the Apostles, tried to fulfill Matthew 18:17 with him and he still didn't listen to them?

 

[Marymog]

[QUOTE="BreadOfLife, post: 802071, member: 7345"]Before the 16th century – the Church WAS doctrinally universal – not divided into splintered factions.
So now you have the task of sorting out which church is for or against God.

Good luck with that.

To God Be The Glory

LOL...I think @BreadOfLife has already sorted that out

Have you???

 

[BreadOfLife]

So now you have the task of sorting out which church is for or against God.
Good luck with that.

To God Be The Glory

Actually - that's the job of the Protestant.
YOU guys have to figure out which one of the tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering sects teaching THOUSANDS of competing and differing doctrines is the RIGHT one.

EVERY ONE of them either splintered off of the Catholic Church or splintered of of a splinter group.
Good luck to YOU . . .