[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

...

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Right, Peter's faith NEVER failed

Matt 26:69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
Matt 26:70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
Matt 26:71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
Matt 26:72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
Matt 26:73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
Matt 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

Denied with an oath. To me, that doesn't sound like a man whose faith hadn't failed. You Catholics are like all the other pick-and-choose salad bar Christians. You only read the parts of the Bible you want to read, and ignore the rest.

Don't deify Peter, and don't deify Mary. Jesus is who is important.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

You self-identified as a mary-worshiping papist. You are a demon by definition, and certainly not Saved©. You aren't even a Christian!

Please take a look at our welcome thread HERE. Also, THIS thread will give you some more detailed information on who we are.

I urge you to abandon your idolatrous cult today, and to accept Christ as your personal Savior.

Well God bless you brother. The Bible tells me that I am blessed by your curses and persecution.

Matthew 5:11-12
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

But let me remind you what Jesus taught about those who reject apostolic teaching in favor of their own private interpreations and human judgements.

Luke 10:16
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

ApostolicChristian

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Well God bless you brother. The Bible tells me that I am blessed by your curses and persecution.

Matthew 5:11-12
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

But let me remind you what Jesus taught about those who reject apostolic teaching in favor of their own private interpreations and human judgements.

Luke 10:16
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

ApostolicChristian

Jesus was adressing the Saved(c) in those verses. He certainly doesn't mean a mary worshiper. You are about as unsaved as can be.

Go back and read this thread from the beginning, papist. Ask Jesus to chase the demons from your heart.

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Right, Peter's faith NEVER failed

Matt 26:69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
Matt 26:70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
Matt 26:71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
Matt 26:72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
Matt 26:73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
Matt 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

Denied with an oath. To me, that doesn't sound like a man whose faith hadn't failed. You Catholics are like all the other pick-and-choose salad bar Christians. You only read the parts of the Bible you want to read, and ignore the rest.

Don't deify Peter, and don't deify Mary. Jesus is who is important.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

Hey brother Billy. How goes it tonight? I don't know where you got that silly idea that I deified Peter here; and I certainly didn't even mention Mary here. We Catholics belive in Jesus as the complete and total living word of God. Catholics are not bible-centric - we do not not deify the bible. We believe ONLY Christ is Divine and that He is living and breathing scripture - pure God breathed word of God.

I think you misread my comment brother. I said "Peter did not ultimately lose his faith". Judas was the one who despaired and lost the faith. Peter repented. Don't you remember that from scripture? Ultimately Peter's faith prevailed and he was saved. Isn't that nice that the leader of Christ's Church prevailed just like Jesus prophesied when he said 'the gates of hell will not prevail'? Isn't our God an awesome God?!

ApostolicChristian
p.s. can you have your admins put back my screen name to the one I originally registered with? God Bless Brother.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

ApostolicChristian
p.s. can you have your admins put back my screen name to the one I originally registered with? God Bless Brother.

Once you repent of your filthy papist ways and accept Christ, we can arrange that. To restore your screen name to your original version would be to propagate a lie.

God hates a liar. I'm looking at you, papist.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I've warned you and I've infracted you. Please stick to the real Bible, the KJV.

Well God bless you brother. The Bible tells me that I am blessed by your curses and persecution.

Matthew 5:11-12
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

That only applies to Christians, friend. Catholics Aren't Christians.

We were on our own forum, praising God and fellowshipping, and then you showed up to persecute us and say all manner of evil against us falsely.

But let me remind you what Jesus taught about those who reject apostolic teaching in favor of their own private interpreations and human judgements.

You need to remind yourself of that, friend. We don't interpret or judge the Word of God here. We accept it as plain literal fact.

Luke 10:16
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Like the other verse you quoted, this one also only applies to Christians delivering the Word of God.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I've warned you and I've infracted you. Please stick to the real Bible, the KJV.


That only applies to Christians, friend. Catholics Aren't Christians.

We were on our own forum, praising God and fellowshipping, and then you showed up to persecute us and say all manner of evil against us falsely.


You need to remind yourself of that, friend. We don't interpret or judge the Word of God here. We accept it as plain literal fact.


Like the other verse you quoted, this one also only applies to Christians delivering the Word of God.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

Brother Billy - are you going to give me an infraction for every post I make? I used the KJV as my reference per your demands so why are you citing me? Is it the wrong KJV version? Can you point me to a link to an online version that you accept as the proper KJV version?

In your "welcome" message you indicated that you were open to dialog with other denominations to discuss scripture faith. Are you now telling me I can't make any comments here because in your eyes I am not a Christian??? That is not a think for you to judge brother - only the just judge can do that. We Catholics accept Baptist as marginal Christians since you are baptised and therefor fall under the authority of the true apostolic church and Christ's Vicar - the pope. But you lack an apostolic authority to teach the full gospel and do not have any means to be assured of forgivness of grave sins for those sins committed after baptism brother.

You need to open two way dialog and stop bullying me with false infractions to discuss and learn important truths which you lack. Is this an adult Christian forum?

God Bless,
ApostolicChristian

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Hey brother Billy. How goes it tonight? I don't know where you got that silly idea that I deified Peter here; and I certainly didn't even mention Mary here.

I know that you Catholics will say anything. I know that you pray to saints, which are nothing more than Roman deities given a Christian makeover. I know that you pray to "Mary", however the Mary that YOU pray to is the Queen of Heaven, also known to the Canaanites as Ashtaroth wife of Baal, also known as Astarte to the Greeks, also known as Ishtar to the Babylonians. Baal and Ashtaroth are also known to the Wiccans as the Lord and Lady.

Your false pagan religion has been cut to the quick and laid bare, pagan. Peter was an important Apostle but he was no pope. The Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ, not any man. Emporer Constantine was the first Pope. He took Roman paganism, slapped a thin veneer of Christianity over it, and declared himself the infallible leader of this new religion. Then he proceeded to persecute the real Christians. THAT is your legacy.

Catholics are not bible-centric - we do not not deify the bible.

The Bible isn't a diety or an idol of any kind, but it is the ONLY way to know God's Will. If you rely on anything else, then YOU are the one who is relying on someone else's private interpretation.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Brother Billy - are you going to give me an infraction for every post I make? I used the KJV as my reference per your demands so why are you citing me?

You are right. I apologize, and I reversed the infraction.

We Catholics accept Baptist as marginal Christians since you are baptised and therefor fall under the authority of the true apostolic church and Christ's Vicar - the pope. But you lack an apostolic authority to teach the full gospel and do not have any means to be assured of forgivness of grave sins for those sins committed after baptism brother.

You have the plan of salvation all wrong, friend. The Pope has no authority. No man is an intermediary between anyone and God. Baptism isn't what makes one a Christian. Repenting of your sins and accepting Christ as your savior is what makes one a Christian. Repent means to be willing to turn away and stop sinning altogether. Christians don't sin once we get saved. The fact that you have Catholics running around sinning after they are baptized is proof that your infant baptisms don't do anything, and receiving "forgiveness" from a man in a dress in a dark room doesn't make you saved.

1John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
1John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
1John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Is baptism for infants, or for believers only?

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I know that you Catholics will say anything. I know that pray to saints, which are nothing more than Roman deities given a Christian makeover. I know that you pray to "Mary", however the Mary that YOU pray to is the Queen of Heaven, also known to the Canaanites as Ashtaroth wife of Baal, also known as Astarte to the Greeks, also known as Ishtar to the Babylonians. Baal and Ashtaroth are also known to the Wiccans as the Lord and Lady.

Brother Billy, pardon me but it appears to me that you are reading too many extra-biblical secular conspiracy sources to arrive at such wild conclusions about Catholics. Good gracious me, this sounds like something right out of Jack Chick's ideas. Do you read his falsehoods to get such ideas about Catholics??

We Catholics believe that The Church has two dimensions just as Christ did - a human physical dimension and a supernatural dimension that is in heaven. We believe in the Communion of Saints and I can give you many scriptural references if you would like to hear them.

Your false pagan religion has been cut to the quick and laid bare, pagan. Peter was an important Apostle but he was no pope. The Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ, not any man. Emperor Constantine was the first Pope. He took Roman paganism, slapped a thin veneer of Christianity over it, and declared himself the infallible leader of this new religion. Then he proceeded to persecute the real Christians. THAT is your legacy.

None of these claims come from the bible brother Billy. So you have to go to the historical record to come to these conclusions. But all the history that I know of does not support this view. Can you cite your sources?
You do not that all Catholic popes must accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Saviour and be baptised do you not? Do you know that Constantine did not accept baptism until he was near death. Therefor it was impossible for Constantine to be a pope and we reject this silly idea.

The Bible isn't a diety or an idol of any kind, but it is the ONLY way to know God's Will. If you rely on anything else, then YOU are the one who is relying on someone else's private interpretation.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

That is not what my bible tells me about discerning God's will brother Billy. You do know that there was no bible until around 374 AD when Catholic Pope St. Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to assemble the original canon don't you? This was to stop the many heresies that were developing from false non-apostolic teachings. In fact NO apostle ever saw a bible and most certainly would not recognize some of the false and man made teachings that came out of the Reformation. The Church (with the Holy Spirit guidance) begot the bible; the bible did not beget the church. You have created a chicken and egg delimma brother Billy since you can not know the above things as facts unless you go outside the bible to tradition of the early church. A sola Scripturaist can not do that without violating his own standards. Do you imagine that the original Christians were not saved without having a bible for 2-3 centuries?

ApostolicChristian

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Brother Billy, pardon me but it appears to me that you are reading too many extra-biblical secular conspiracy sources to arrive at such wild conclusions about Catholics. Good gracious me, this sounds like something right out of Jack Chick's ideas. Do you read his falsehoods to get such ideas about Catholics??

Jack Chick is a good man. I know you Catholics hate him because he's got your number.

We Catholics believe that The Church has two dimensions just as Christ did - a human physical dimension and a supernatural dimension that is in heaven. We believe in the Communion of Saints and I can give you many scriptural references if you would like to hear them.

That's just plain facts. The devil will tell nine truths to get you to believe one lie.

None of these claims come from the bible brother Billy. So you have to go to the historical record to come to these conclusions. But all the history that I know of does not support this view.

I'm guessing it's because all of the history YOU know is the propaganda they teach you in your Catholic school.

You do not that all Catholic popes must accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Saviour and be baptised do you not? Do you know that Constantine did not accept baptism until he was near death. Therefor it was impossible for Constantine to be a pope and we reject this silly idea.

He converted to Christianity at the age of 40, and lived for another 25 years. Constantine was the Emperor of Rome and he created the office of pope. Do you have evidence that the no pope until baptism rule came about before the time of Constantine?

You do know that there was no bible until around 374 AD when Catholic Pope St. Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to assemble the original canon don't you?

I knew that Pope Damascus commissioned Jerome to write a Bible, but I also know that it wasn't the first. Take a look at this.

In 331, Constantine commissioned Eusebius to deliver fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Athanasius (Apol. Const. 4) recorded Alexandrian scribes around 340 preparing Bibles for Constans.

So there were Bibles before Jerome's time.

In fact NO apostle ever saw a bible and most certainly would not recognize some of the false and man made teachings that came out of the Reformation.

Of course the apostles didn't see a Bible, they were too busy writing their own parts of it.

I agree with you about the heretical teachings that came out of the Reformation. Good thing we Baptists weren't part of that. Baptists were the original Christians.

The Church (with the Holy Spirit guidance) begot the bible; the bible did not beget the church. You have created a chicken and egg delimma brother Billy since you can not know the above things as facts unless you go outside the bible to tradition of the early church. A sola Scripturaist can not do that without violating his own standards. Do you imagine that the original Christians were not saved without having a bible for 2-3 centuries?

Your false dilemma is easily resolved. Back then, everyone knew someone, or knew someone who knew someone, who knew one of the apostles who knew Jesus, and could get the Gospel straight. Today, we are too far removed, and the Bible is the only way to learn God's Word.

So, I get your non sequitur of a point. A man standing in a crowd in 29 AD listening to Jesus deliver the sermon on the mount can get saved without having read the Bible. A Roman who has just received Paul's epistle to them can get saved from reading it.

How are we to get saved today? Am I to believe a man in the dress who says I should count some beads and pray to a statue? Or should I believe what is in God's Word?

As a matter of fact, you can get saved today before you have read the Bible. All you have to do is be willing to give up your sins forever and accept Jesus as your savior. What have you got to lose, friend?

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Jack Chick is a good man. I know you Catholics hate him because he's got your number.

Mark 10:18 (KJV) And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

That's just plain facts. The devil will tell nine truths to get you to believe one lie.

Scripture reference please.

John 8:44 (KJV) Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

I'm guessing it's because all of the history YOU know is the propaganda they teach you in your Catholic school.

Not quite. I got past all the Protestant Reformation History they teach in all the public schools and went back to the Early Church Fathers and read the real unrevised histories that came out of the secular religions.

He converted to Christianity at the age of 40, and lived for another 25 years. Constantine was the Emperor of Rome and he created the office of pope. Do you have evidence that the no pope until baptism rule came about before the time of Constantine?

Cite your references please.

You are misinformed. Constantine may have "declared" himself Catholic at around age 40 but he still maintained the title of Pontifex Maximus, which emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood. But the truth is one is not a Christian until one is baptised into the faith and Constantine did not do this until he was on his death bed.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_(emperor)

Eusebius of Caesarea's account resumes following the abortive Persian campaign, with Constantine set about building a martyrion for the apostles in Constantinople, and, within it, a final resting-place for himself.[203] In the course of one Feast of Easter, Constantine fell seriously ill.[204] He left Constantinople for the hot baths near his mother's city of Helenopolis (Altinova), on the southern shores of the Gulf of İzmit. There, in a church his mother built in honor of Lucian the Apostle, he prayed, and there he realized that he was dying. Seeking purification, he became a catechumen, and attempted a return to Constantinople, making it only as far as a suburb of Nicomedia.[205] He summoned the bishops, and told them of his hope to be baptized in the River Jordan, where Christ was written to have been baptized. He requested the baptism right away, promising to live a more Christian life should he live through his illness. The bishops, Eusebius records, "performed the sacred ceremonies according to custom".[206] He chose the Arianizing bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, bishop of the city where he lay dying, as his baptizer.[207] In postponing his baptism, he followed one custom at the time which postponed baptism until old age or death.[208] It was thought Constantine put off baptism as long as he did so as to be absolved from as much of his sin as possible. [209] Constantine died soon after at a suburban villa called Achyron, on the last day of the fifty-day festival of Pentecost directly following Easter, on 22 May 337.[210]

I knew that Pope Damascus commissioned Jerome to write a Bible, but I also know that it wasn't the first. Take a look at this.

These were not "bibles" per say but collections of some of the inspired works but also probably had some of the more popular spurious works as well. So we don't know exactly what these were. It was later under under Pope Damasus that we get a definitive canon.

Of course the apostles didn't see a Bible, they were too busy writing their own parts of it.

There were no writing assignments among the apostles. No apostle knew they were writing what would be considered bits and pieces of inspired word and were under no commandment from Jesus to write anything for that matter. What they were commanded to do was "teach" and given that very very few people could read and write at that time spoken message was the most efficacious. It is only after may heretics start developing that The Catholic Church decided to develop its official candidate from among hundreds of competing spurious works.

I agree with you about the heretical teachings that came out of the Reformation. Good thing we Baptists weren't part of that. Baptists were the original Christians.

I am happy that we agree that much of the Reformation was extremely heretical. But Baptists did not exist until after the Reformation as reformation to the Reformation and were not an original branch of Christianity. The only group anyone can point to scripturally are the disciples who abandoned Jesus difficult teaching on real presence in the bread and wine as Jesus' real body and blood. Those the Apostle John ironically marks with the sign of the beast in his accounts of these in John:6:66. Is this your group?

Your false dilemma is easily resolved. Back then, everyone knew someone, or knew someone who knew someone, who knew one of the apostles who knew Jesus, and could get the Gospel straight. Today, we are too far removed, and the Bible is the only way to learn God's Word.

Just like all the Jews declared themselves to be saved by birthright to Abraham? This does not pan out - since most of the apostles were dispersed all over the known regions preaching the Good News. Do you think that they all Christians went to Rome to talk to Peter or Paul?

So, I get your non sequitur of a point. A man standing in a crowd in 29 AD listening to Jesus deliver the sermon on the mount can get saved without having read the Bible. A Roman who has just received Paul's epistle to them can get saved from reading it.

Is salvation now a matter of reading comprehension? Remember almost no one could read or write back then.

How are we to get saved today? Am I to believe a man in the dress who says I should count some beads and pray to a statue? Or should I believe what is in God's Word?

Am I to believe a strange man who has no apostolic succession or teaching authority and never knew Christ or one of his apostle's successors and who shouts and screams into an amplified megaphone a salvation slogan "Jesus saves - come to Jesus" is going to get me saved? What of the other 7,959 verses of the bibles - are all those irrelevant?

Every single Bishop of the Catholic Church was hand picked by a successor of Peter and physically "layed on of hands" to convey apostolic authority. The Catholic Church has known Jesus and the apostles and their successors for 2,000 years. These were all our friends and family. No other Church on the planet can make this claim except or Orthodox brethren in the east who have a true apostolic succession too and are attempting to reunify.

As a matter of fact, you can get saved today before you have read the Bible. All you have to do is be willing to give up your sins forever and accept Jesus as your savior. What have you got to lose, friend?

Pastor Billy-Reuben

There is no such concept as "easy believism" and salvation through self-proclamation. No man is saved until God judges him saved. No man can deny God His sovereign right to judge and make no mistake about it God will judge and many 10's of millions and perhaps even hundred of million or billions will go to hell. But we also know that God will be merciful to whom He chooses to be merciful and for this reason Catholics pray to God for all people.

All Catholics accept Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour at Baptism (or are pre-declared by their parents just like the early church did) and reaffirm this at confirmation where we are each "layed on of hands" by a true apostolic bishop of Jesus to convey our status as true priests, prophets and kings to share in Christ's anointing. Does this mean all Catholics are saved? Gracious NO! Many Catholics are just like many many Protestants who pay Jesus lip service only and will be condemned. But it is much much easier for a Catholic to be saved than any other faith since we have ALL 7 sacraments of God (ref. Rev. the 7 horns of the lamb vs the 2 horns of the false lamb that is a beast). Protestants have only 2 sacraments - baptism and marriage. After baptism Protestants have NO way to get forgiven of mortal sins since only the apostles and their successors have the authority to loose and bind sins (sacramental confession).

Matthew 7:21 (KJV)
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Hope to see you in the other side brother...

James

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

You have the plan of salvation all wrong, friend. The Pope has no authority. No man is an intermediary between anyone and God. Baptism isn't what makes one a Christian. Repenting of your sins and accepting Christ as your savior is what makes one a Christian. Repent means to be willing to turn away and stop sinning altogether. Christians don't sin once we get saved. The fact that you have Catholics running around sinning after they are baptized is proof that your infant baptisms don't do anything, and receiving "forgiveness" from a man in a dress in a dark room doesn't make you saved.

I must respectfully say that my bible tells me somthing else Brother Billy.
You have multiple issues here that I may not be able to respond to in one single post.

Please reconsider the biblical evidence that God has always worked through priests and His specially chosen authorities. Even the common sense of reason and the natural order of Creation tells us this truth. Clearly, if there was no earthly authority or law we would have severe anarchy and disorder; and this is not Godly since He is good and the essence of order and law. Perhaps this is why after the Reformation we have over 33,000 different Protestant sects as each person wants to be their own authority through private interpretation of scripture. In the perverse but well meaning ideas of Luther - every man with a bible becomes his own pope and no one agrees with his brother. But we know by the bad fruits of this disharmony of divisions and factions that this was a false doctrine and teaching of man.

Please see the following references.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."
Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority.
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.
Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word "episcopoi" (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul's use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.
1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.
2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.
2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.
2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ's work.
1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).
Exodus 18:25-26 - Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.
Exodus 40:15 - the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.
Numbers 3:3 - the sons of Aaron were formally "anointed" priests in "ordination" to minister in the priests' "office."
Numbers 16:40 - shows God's intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.
Numbers 27:18-20 - shows God's intention that, through the "laying on of hands," one is commissioned and has authority.
Deut. 34:9 - Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom. Sirach 45:15 - Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination.

Is baptism for infants, or for believers only?
Pastor Billy-Reuben

I will answer this in a seperate reply since this is getting long.

ApostolicChristian

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Is baptism for infants, or for believers only?
Pastor Billy-Reuben

First of all let's address Baptism holistically. Here is what the Bible tells us about the need for true Christians to be baptised.

Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.


Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

John 3:3,5 - unless we are "born again" of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase "born again" is "anothen" which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where "anothen" is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.

Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus?

Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5 - these texts present more examples of people learning of Jesus, and then immediately being baptized. If accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is all one needs to do to be saved, then why does everyone in the early Church immediately seek baptism?

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation.

1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic.

Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic. Christ actually dwells within our soul.

Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.” Regeneration is never symbolic, and the phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (filial adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ. No righteous deeds done before baptism could save us. Righteous deeds after baptism are necessary for our salvation.

There is also a definite parallel between John 3:5 and Titus 3:5: (1) John 3:5 – enter the kingdom of God / Titus 3:5 – He saved us. (2) John 3:5 – born of water / Titus 3:5 – washing. (3) John 3:5 – born of the Spirit / Titus 3:5 – renewal in the Spirit.

Heb. 10:22 - in baptism, our hearts are sprinkled clean from an evil conscience (again, dealing with the interior of the person) as our bodies are washed with pure water (the waters of baptism). Baptism regenerates us because it removes original sin, sanctifies our souls, and effects our adoption as sons and daughters in Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body" is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.

Again, notice the parallel between Heb. 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21: (1) Heb. 10:22 – draw near to the sanctuary (heaven) / 1 Peter 3:21 – now saves us. (2) Heb. 10:22 – sprinkled clean, washed with pure water / 1 Peter 3:20-21 – saved through water, baptism. (3) Heb. 10:22 – from an evil conscience (interior) / 1 Peter 3:21 – for a clear conscience (interior).
Titus 3:6 and 1 Peter 3:21 also specifically say the grace and power of baptism comes “through Jesus Christ” (who transforms our inner nature).

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, the Church has always taught that baptism is a normative, not an absolute necessity. There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments.

Luke 23:43 - the good thief, although not baptized, shows that there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word "paradise," He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol" meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - there is also a baptism by blood. Lord says, "I have a baptism to be baptized with" referring to His death. Hence, the Church has always taught that those martyred for the faith may be saved without water baptism (e.g., the Holy Innocents).

Mark 10:38 - Jesus says "are you able...to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?," referring to His death.
1 John 5:6 - Jesus came by water and blood. He was baptized by both water and blood. Martyrs are baptized by blood.

And now let's talk about what the bible teaches us about infant baptism.

What the Bible Teaches About Infant Baptism
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.


Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts
16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1
Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.
Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.
Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith.

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith.

1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.

Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they
did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.


I hope that helps you understand what the Bible teaches Catholics about Baptism and Infant Baptism Brother Billy.

ApostolicChristian

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

[quote=ApostolicFalseChristian;261721] Originally Posted by Scripture References for How God Transfers Authority

Please reconsider the biblical evidence that God has always worked through priests

I’m not sure I agree with the word “priest” – disciple, apostle, follower, yes, but priest?

Clearly, if there was no earthly authority or law we would have severe anarchy and disorder; and this is not Godly since He is good and the essence of order and law.

You have omitted the probity and authenticity of the keeper of the law.

Perhaps this is why after the Reformation we have over 33,000 different Protestant sects as each person wants to be their own authority through private interpretation of scripture.

Now why would anyone disagree with Rome?

In the perverse but well meaning ideas of Luther - every man with a bible becomes his own pope and no one agrees with his brother. But we know by the bad fruits of this disharmony of divisions and factions that this was a false doctrine and teaching of man.

the holders of the office of the vicar of Rome were, in their majority, not renowned for being good men.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

But here we have men of equal rank appointing others to equal rank to go forth themselves as missionaries and selection is done by lots. Membership of the Apostles is in question here, not papal succession.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin.

You must be careful of using phrases like “authority” and “Bishopric” – the bishops of the catholic church are sinners who defy the word of God.

The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all.

A cynic might add, as a way of raising money and having political influence.

God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

He never said that he would give anyone leaders, the apostles took it upon themselves to select from amongst their ranks in equality.

Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ's authority.

Let us not forget that “to be ordained” merely means to be appointed.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Fine $10 words but we are talking here about people appointing people of equal merit, we are not talking a behemoth of a business conglomerate with everything from peons to a CEO.

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop.

I suppose I better what makes you think that Ananias was a bishop – he was a Disciple, this we know, but a bishop?

This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles

You are confusing apostles with the ragamuffins of the catholic church. As yet you have established precisely nothing save that you are impressed by words..

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

You’ve not been listening have you?

I’m not going any further with this. You’re confabulating Bishops, Apostles, and Disciples and your unimpressive use of “ordination” has left me with the intense feeling that a Jesuit believes 7 impossible things before breakfast.

Anyway, as you’re so keen on bishops, and as none of the vicar of Rome’s bishops are married, what do you make of this?

1Tm:3:1: This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Tm:3:2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Tm:3:3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Tm:3:4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Tm:3:5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Tm:3:6: Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Tm:3:7: Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.