water baptism or just belief?
-
-
First Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
Does water baptism saves?Does believing and faith alone saved?
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
Exactly Faith. This is another subject which we've shown to Evan over and over, but he'd rather stick with arguments that have been abandoned by all but the diehard separatists.
Evan, you'll find anything on the web if you search for an answer that you seek. But you aren't seeking for the truth, just something to back up what you desire to be true.
Your author is an example of Protestant tradition. Serious Protestants don't even use the pebble/stone invention anymore. The majority of Protestant scholars and theologians agree with the biblical (catholic) understanding of Matthew 16 and its reference to Isaiah 22 which makes Peter the prime minister of the the new Davidic kingdom. Forget about this silly pebble/stone argument. Petros and Petra mean the same thing in Koine greek, ROCK. Again, this is confirmed by Protestant theologians as well.
Unfortunately, your author is trying to hold on to a polemic that has been thoroughly destroyed. His audience certainly isn't scholarly, but just an attempt to keep this tradition going. He actually goes to John 1:42 and gives a totally false interpretation that shows he hasn't even studied what he is talking about.
Jhn 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).
This is like the bible being a dictionary. Simon, you shall be called Cephas which means Peter (Petros). Cephas is the Greek tranliteration of the Aramaic Kepha. Kepha means rock, large rock. There is no circumstance under which it would mean stone. The Aramaic for stone or small rock is kevna and as FAL pointed out, the word for stone in Greek is lithos. Since your author's premise is false, the rest of his words amount to little more that Protestant tradition.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
Exactly Faith. This is another subject which we've shown to Evan over and over, but he'd rather stick with arguments that have been abandoned by all but the diehard separatists.
Evan, you'll find anything on the web if you search for an answer that you seek. But you aren't seeking for the truth, just something to back up what you desire to be true.
Your author is an example of Protestant tradition. Serious Protestants don't even use the pebble/stone invention anymore. The majority of Protestant scholars and theologians agree with the biblical (catholic) understanding of Matthew 16 and its reference to Isaiah 22 which makes Peter the prime minister of the the new Davidic kingdom. Forget about this silly pebble/stone argument. Petros and Petra mean the same thing in Koine greek, ROCK. Again, this is confirmed by Protestant theologians as well.
Unfortunately, your author is trying to hold on to a polemic that has been thoroughly destroyed. His audience certainly isn't scholarly, but just an attempt to keep this tradition going. He actually goes to John 1:42 and gives a totally false interpretation that shows he hasn't even studied what he is talking about.
Jhn 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).
This is like the bible being a dictionary. Simon, you shall be called Cephas which means Peter (Petros). Cephas is the Greek tranliteration of the Aramaic Kepha. Kepha means rock, large rock. There is no circumstance under which it would mean stone. The Aramaic for stone or small rock is kevna and as FAL pointed out, the word for stone in Greek is lithos. Since your author's premise is false, the rest of his words amount to little more that Protestant tradition.
I am not searching for the truth I already found the truth!
My Lord Jesus is the way the truth and the life, not a society from rome or salt lake city , NYC watch tower society!
I said it on another thread and I'LL say it here that water baptism is a fruit not a root like believing(trusting)wit faith!
I can learn about what Catholic believe but I don't have to agree with you.
It is like knowing the truth about different poisons, but I don't have to take it to experience it will kill you!
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Edited by evangelist on 09/13/2009 13:59:14
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
You do not have to agree with the Catholic Church, but at least agree with the Bible. So far you claim to know the Truth and yet you contradict the Bible so often that it seems that you no longer recognise it as being God's Word.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
You do not have to agree with the Catholic Church, but at least agree with the Bible. So far you claim to know the Truth and yet you contradict the Bible so often that it seems that you no longer recognise it as being God's Word.
If you had the bible as your final authoroty then we both would come in many agreements. and same interpretaions in the truth of the word of God and not doctrines of men!
This is why I have more understanding and victory with JHW while they are at least bible directed in many things and the bible is also their final authority.
I think they would also agree about the error of water baptism taught in many religious churchy.
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
no true evan. most non catholics claim the bible as their final authority too yet they tend not to agree on a lot of things. there are several sects that believe baptism is a requirement that claim the bible as their sole authority. the problem is interpretation or tradition. you make up your own.
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
no true evan. most non catholics claim the bible as their final authority too yet they tend not to agree on a lot of things. there are several sects that believe baptism is a requirement that claim the bible as their sole authority. the problem is interpretation or tradition. you make up your own.
It is not my own , their is many other links , scholars , bible schools and pastor, bishops who aree and teach the exact same as me Mike!
There is many churchy which are not RCC who still don't teach the true good gospel of Christ.
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
You do not have to agree with the Catholic Church, but at least agree with the Bible. So far you claim to know the Truth and yet you contradict the Bible so often that it seems that you no longer recognise it as being God's Word.
If you had the bible as your final authoroty then we both would come in many agreements. and same interpretaions in the truth of the word of God and not doctrines of men!
This is why I have more understanding and victory with JHW while they are at least bible directed in many things and the bible is also their final authority.
I think they would also agree about the error of water baptism taught in many religious churchy.
one love
Correction, if you truly had the Bible as YOUR final authority, then we would be in agreement on most things.
You want me to have the Bible as my FINAL authority ONLY so that I will not accept the Authority of my Church. But you refuse to accept the Bible as an authority AT ALL. You deny much of what is in the Bible and reject sound doctrine that stems from the very scriptures themselves.
It is a Catch-22. The Bible demands that I follow proper authority. Check. The Bible demands that I obey those who have rule over me. Check. The Bible demands that I follow Oral Tradition as well as the Written Word. Check. The Bible demands that I respect the authority given Peter and the Apostles and their successors. Check.
Do you do ANY of this?
The Bible demands that you follow proper authority. Nope, you say only the Bible, but the Bible never says that.
The Bible demands that you obey those who have rule over you. Nope, you insist on having rule over yourself.
The Bible demands that you follow Oral Tradition as well as the Written Word. Nope, you insist that this was somehow done away with - in the absense of any evidence at all.
The Bible demands that you respect the authority given Peter and the Apostles and their successors. Nope, you insist that they had no authority and that it is acceptable to bear false witness against their successors - even when the Bible says that you may not do this, especially against a bishop or presbyter of Christ's Church.
When you actually start accepting the Bible at least as Authoritative and Binding, which I already do, then we can talk about what should be our final authority.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
You do not have to agree with the Catholic Church, but at least agree with the Bible. So far you claim to know the Truth and yet you contradict the Bible so often that it seems that you no longer recognise it as being God's Word.
If you had the bible as your final authoroty then we both would come in many agreements. and same interpretaions in the truth of the word of God and not doctrines of men!
This is why I have more understanding and victory with JHW while they are at least bible directed in many things and the bible is also their final authority.
I think they would also agree about the error of water baptism taught in many religious churchy.
one love
Correction, if you truly had the Bible as YOUR final authority, then we would be in agreement on most things.
You want me to have the Bible as my FINAL authority ONLY so that I will not accept the Authority of my Church. But you refuse to accept the Bible as an authority AT ALL. You deny much of what is in the Bible and reject sound doctrine that stems from the very scriptures themselves.
It is a Catch-22. The Bible demands that I follow proper authority. Check. The Bible demands that I obey those who have rule over me. Check. The Bible demands that I follow Oral Tradition as well as the Written Word. Check. The Bible demands that I respect the authority given Peter and the Apostles and their successors. Check.
Do you do ANY of this?
The Bible demands that you follow proper authority. Nope, you say only the Bible, but the Bible never says that.
The Bible demands that you obey those who have rule over you. Nope, you insist on having rule over yourself.
The Bible demands that you follow Oral Tradition as well as the Written Word. Nope, you insist that this was somehow done away with - in the absense of any evidence at all.
The Bible demands that you respect the authority given Peter and the Apostles and their successors. Nope, you insist that they had no authority and that it is acceptable to bear false witness against their successors - even when the Bible says that you may not do this, especially against a bishop or presbyter of Christ's Church.
When you actually start accepting the Bible at least as Authoritative and Binding, which I already do, then we can talk about what should be our final authority.
You forget that the bible has priority over the oral and traditions of men!
What else does Jesus say about Tradition?
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked [Jesus], why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is WRITTEN [Jesus is quoting the Bible], This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...
And he said unto them, Full well YE REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, THAT YE MAY KEEP YOUR OWN TRADITION.
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Mark 7:5-9, 13
THIS is the scripture Catholics need to read! But alas, instead they listen to their apologists and try to support their man-made traditions with the Book they once burned and outlawed!
Did the Catholic religion give me the scriptures?
I can't believe they are even forming their mouths to say this. The Catholic religion hates the Bible. The Catholic religion killed upwards of 50 MILLION PEOPLE because they wanted to stop the reading of the Bible. What gall they have to mention this thing about giving me the scriptures. They BURNED the scriptures.
Do not be under the false assumption that there was ever a time when the Catholic religion had control of all Christendom. True Bible believers have always been around living, growing and thriving in isolated areas--people like the Waldensians and the Lollardsands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the Bible enough?
The Catholic religion says, "No, the Bible is not enough. You have to keep it in perspective." But the Bible says something entirely different. Revelation says the BIBLE IS COMPLETE. That means the Bible ain't missin' nothin! There is nothing to be added and nothing to be taken away.
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19
If you are a Catholic person teaching people to believe in Tradition, you need to re-evaluate what you are doing. Not only do you follow a false gospel, you add to and subtract from God's word. You might want to read the above again and consider what you are doing.
I've compiled a list of every New Testament reference to the word "scripture". NO WHERE will you find it say that the scriptures are not sufficient for everthing that we need. One Catholic told me,
"The Bible itself never claims to be the sole rule of faith. The Bible claims itself useful to settle disputes, etc..but never, anywhere does it say that faith and Christianity is taught ONLY through the Bible."
Of course this is not true, but the larger question is this:
Where does the Bible say that it is NOT the sole rule of faith?
If what you believe is supposed to be based on the Bible, then logically speaking, there must be a place that specifically sanctions the Catholic religion and its traditions. You won't find it. The burden of proof rests on the Catholic, not the Bible believer.
Either you believe the written word or you'll believe what MEN tell you about the written word. Catholics will tell you, "I believe the Bible is 100% true and I believe that Catholic Tradition is 100% true." I've got news for you, two contradictory documents cannot both be 100% true. It is logically impossible.
God will not accept your worship based on a lie.
my source:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/oraltrad.htm
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Edited by evangelist on 09/21/2009 23:24:50
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
can learn about what Catholic believe but I don't have to agree with you.
It is like knowing the truth about different poisons, but I don't have to take it to experience it will kill you!
Cute. Nobody said you had to agree with what we believe, but we're speaking about translating languages here. Now that most of the Protestant scholars have admitted that the Catholic interpretation of Matt 16:18 is correct, It didn't mean they all immediately ran to Rome (although some have). They now say, yes the church was built upon the rock of Peter, but that doesn't prove apostolic succession.
So the point I was making was fairly narrow in that Peter is not called a pebble or a stone according to the language. That is the fable that has been spread around. The only reason there is a difference in the Greek is because it wouldn't be proper for Jesus to be calling Peter rockette or some such girly name. Simple!
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
can learn about what Catholic believe but I don't have to agree with you.
It is like knowing the truth about different poisons, but I don't have to take it to experience it will kill you!
Cute. Nobody said you had to agree with what we believe, but we're speaking about translating languages here. Now that most of the Protestant scholars have admitted that the Catholic interpretation of Matt 16:18 is correct, It didn't mean they all immediately ran to Rome (although some have). They now say, yes the church was built upon the rock of Peter, but that doesn't prove apostolic succession.
So the point I was making was fairly narrow in that Peter is not called a pebble or a stone according to the language. That is the fable that has been spread around. The only reason there is a difference in the Greek is because it wouldn't be proper for Jesus to be calling Peter rockette or some such girly name. Simple!
Can you name some of these protestant scholars who would agree with the RCC?
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
Evangelist, Jesus was speaking against particular man-made traditions. Paul exhorts us to stand fast in the Traditions of the Church, both by word of mouth and written epistle.
And traditions should never contradict the Bible, but lets face it - you would not have a Bible at all were it not for Tradition or for the Lawful Authority that put it together.
You are putting the cart before the horse and thinking you have it right.
Once again you have not been able to deal with what I have presented and instead have taken the scattershot approach.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars
William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary
The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.
New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.
“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Pe****ta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Pe****ta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
“Matthew”
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.
The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.
“The Gospel of Matthew”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.
The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37
Source: http://catholicity.elcore.net/SimonIsTheRock.html
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
quote:
[
It is not my own , their is many other links , scholars , bible schools and pastor, bishops who aree and teach the exact same as me Mike!
There is many churchy which are not RCC who still don't teach the true good gospel of Christ.
one love
and your missing the point because there are many who don't. many non catholics also disagree with you. heck i would have disagreed with you on half of the stuff you think you know and i was a charismatic. claiming to hold the bible as a final authority doesn't guarantee truth, and it certainly doesnt mean we would agree.
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
Heck if calling the Bible the final authority was a guarantee of agreement, we would not have 30,000 plus Christian denominations all claiming to use the Bible as their sole authority.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
*
jdubya
Thank you for those quote of scholars and one of them being a minister, but I think this thread is not the one to talk about your pope or peter being the rock.
really this doesn't even interest me because a pope or Peter can't save no one, it is those thing protaining to the gospel which is important and interest me which is the gospel which I defend and teach.
The other thread like purgatory, which down grade and split on jesus blood which interest me and should be reproved and rebuked as error and a teaching from the pits of hell or knowing were we are going, redemption eternal, the good news that issue is no more an issue, salvation, being born again and the understanding that water baptism doesn't save us or is not required to salvation but should be done sooner or latter, and justification.
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS