Did Peter have a Wife & Children?

[hazcompat]

Mark 1:16 And passing by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother, casting nets into the sea (for they were fishermen).

Mark 1:[29] And immediately going out of the synagogue they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. [30] And Simon’s wife’s mother lay in a fit of a fever: and forthwith they tell him of her.

Mark 3:[16] And to Simon he gave the name Peter

peace

 

[brb3]

Abu,

Elder, Presbytr, Bishop, Overseer and Pastor all mean the same thing. The requirement was for them to be married and have children.

Wrongo !

 

[brb3]

the Greek word ‘baptizo’ which means fully immersed. Not christening and not sprinkling. Finally, the individuals being baptized would be free willing participants who can hear the Word, believe the Word, repent of their sins, confess that Christ was the Son of God, and be Baptized (fully immersed) for the forgiveness of their sins. A baby cannot believe, repent, and confess; nor is a baby a willing participant. The parents are.

Again … you ‘force’ your prejudices upon the scripture. If running river water is available … it is preferred. But, in Jerusalem that day … there was no Jordan River nearby. So, you can be sure these 3000 were baptized by other means. In pools, by annointing / sprinkling, etc.

What is the difference between 1000 gal. baptistry pool & 1 gal. of H2O poured over ones head ? God perceives our desire to be cleaned of sin [as Peter taught in his epistle] and Christ makes annointing of H.S. happen … it’s not the amount of water available to wash our soiled, body dirt away.

 

[brb3]

Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, but the keys that the Bible is speaking of is the Gospel and God’s Word, not literal keys. If we follow God’s Word, we will make it to heaven, if we do not follow God’s Word, we will not make it to heaven. Remember, Peter never spoke on his own, it was the Holy Spirit, which is God and Jesus, that spoke through Peter.

Wrongo ! Nonsense ! Peter received the authoritative keys to the Kingdom. He was given the ‘leadership’ … the shepherd role. And, allowed to ‘bind’ & ‘loose’ sins.

Certainly Peter often spoke on his own, gave his opinion. Paul even tells us he had to correct Peter on rare occasion. No one is continuously ‘filled’ with H.S. We are mortal my friend. Only Christ was continuously ‘filled’ with H.S. and w/o sin. Yet, whenever Peter spoke in his role are leader of the flock [the Catholic Church] … he was ‘filled’ with H.S. and protected from error in areas of Faith & Morals.

 

[brb3]

Since we know that the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s Church, and the devil also knows that he cannot prevail against Christ’s Church, what does the devil do? He makes a bunch of look-a-like churches and have them all claim to be Christ’s Church. Fooling the folks.

You finally got one right …

Yes, the Catholic [Universal] Church is not deceived by satan. That’s why the Protestants and many other heretical groups got ‘fooled’ … convinced to break away … and they have been dispersed to the 4-winds. 30,000 weak associations, none protected by Peter’s Apostolic Keys !!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Matthew 16:18 says Christ will build HIS church on the rock. Yes, but Peter is not the rock. What Peter said, the confession that Christ was the Son of the Living God, was the rock.

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

---

Here are five of the more than two dozen quotes I have from heavyweight Protestant scholars regarding the identity of “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.

---

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…**one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. **“To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . 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 . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

---

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] 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" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…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, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

 

[Randy_Carson]

If the Catholic church was Christ’s Church, wouldn’t you think it would follow the pattern He left in the Bible?

We do.

If you believe the Catholics wrote the Bible, first of all, you are discrediting the Bible because it says that the Bible is God-breathed.

Men, inspired by God, wrote the Bible. These men were part of the Church which called itself “Catholic” before the end of the first century.

Secondly, if the Catholics wrote the Bible, why are they not following what they wrote?

Elder, Presbytr, Bishop, Overseer and Pastor all mean the same thing.

:nope:

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, *episcopos *(“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

The requirement was for them to be married and have children.

Prove it.

Thirdly, if they were following what they wrote, they would follow the Scriptures when talking about baptism, which comes from the Greek word ‘baptizo’ which means fully immersed. Not christening and not sprinkling.

I need a Kleenex. (Any brand of tissue will do.)
Can you Xerox this for me? (What I really want is a copy - any brand of copier is fine.)
Who wants a Coke? (Actually, any soft drink is fine.)

Words change meanings. baptizo does mean immerse, but ancient documents show that the Church practiced sprinkling and pouring as well as immersion from the very beginning.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thirdly, if they were following what they wrote, they would follow the Scriptures when talking about baptism, which comes from the Greek word ‘baptizo’ which means fully immersed. Not christening and not sprinkling. Finally, the individuals being baptized would be free willing participants who can hear the Word, believe the Word, repent of their sins, confess that Christ was the Son of God, and be Baptized (fully immersed) for the forgiveness of their sins. A baby cannot believe, repent, and confess; nor is a baby a willing participant. The parents are. Look at every example in the Bible of baptisms and you will see that everyone heard the Word, believed it, repented, confessed, and were baptized. You can go to the 3000 souls saved on the Day of Pentecost to the Ethiopian Eunuch, Cornelius, Lydia, Saul (later becoming Paul), the Phillippian Jailor, etc. Oh, don’t let us forget that Jesus set the example in Matthew 3:13-17. There are two examples of the Holy Spirit descending on men by fire, the first was the apostles on the Day of Pentecost and that was for the Jews to believe that the apostles were followers of Christ. The second example is Cornelius, for the apostles to believe that salvation was for the Gentiles as well. Read Acts 10:47-48. Peter says that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit, JUST AS THEY HAD, and he (Peter) ordered that they be baptized in the name of Christ. The Bible infers that the apostles also were baptized after they received the Holy Spirit. You will not find one baby being baptized in the Bible. We should speak where the Bible speaks and should be silent where the Bible is silent.

Oh, well the Bible says that “this IS my body” not this “represents” and that God gave the power to forgive sins “to men” (plural). So the Bible and I have spoken, and you should be silent.

However, concerning baptism of infants:

Leviticus 12:3
3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.

These texts show the circumcision of eight-day-old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant.

Connection to New Covenant

Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the new “circumcision of Christ” for all people of the New Covenant.

The Church Begins to Preach Baptism

Acts 2:38-39
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Peter did not say, “Every one of you adults”; he said, “Every one of you” without qualification and added “the promise (of the Holy Spirit) is for you and your children”. Baptism and the Holy Spirit are frequently connected throughout the Bible (cf. Ez. 36:25-27, Mt. 3:16, Jn. 3:5).

Acts 10:47-48
Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius which probably included infants and young children. There is not one word in this passage (or any other in scripture) about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15
13On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home.

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. 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.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, but the keys that the Bible is speaking of is the Gospel and God’s Word, not literal keys. If we follow God’s Word, we will make it to heaven, if we do not follow God’s Word, we will not make it to heaven. Remember, Peter never spoke on his own, **it was the Holy Spirit, which is God and Jesus, that spoke through Peter. **God is the Word (John 1:1). Whatever the Word bound on earth is bound, and whatever the Word bound in heaven is bound.

Excellent argument for infallibility of the Pope. Well said. :clapping:

Since we know that the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s Church, and the devil also knows that he cannot prevail against Christ’s Church, what does the devil do? He makes a bunch of look-a-like churches and have them all claim to be Christ’s Church. Fooling the folks.

Yes. This really took off in the 16th century, didn’t it? Even Martin Luther complained about problem he created:

“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet”(citation: De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, The Facts About Luther, 208.) (To the Christians at Antwerp **April, 1525, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 547 ; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342 " Briefwechsel," 5, p. 151).
“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” (Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.)
“If the world lasts, it will be necessary, on account of the differing interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith, we should receive the [Catholic] councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge.” (Letter to Urlich Zwingli.)

The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels!

Amen! This is why sola scriptura is a false Tradition of Protestant men.

Are you sure you’re not a Catholic!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Usagi,

I’m going to give you Scriptures which talk about the way that Christ’s Church leadership is to be set up. I won’t post the entire Scriptures, just the chapters and verses. Please read them and tell me whether or not your Bible says the same thing.

You’ve got a lot of stuff right…these articles might help with the rest.

**THE THREE-FOLD MINISTRY **
By James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806chap.asp

Bishop, Priest and Deacon
catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

Did Jesus Give Priests to the Church?
By Kenneth J. Howell
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp

In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. Aaron, high priest
2. Levites, ministerial priests
3. Israel, a nation of priests

We see a similar structure in the NT.

The New Testament Priesthood Proved from Scripture

Jesus, Our Eternal High Priest

“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” (Hebrews 4:14)

The Ministerial Priesthood

“But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:15-16)

The Universal Priesthood of All Believers

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9)

Additionally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)

 

[brb3]

14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home.

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. 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.

Good proof !!

Parents can speak for their households … until the infants/children reach age of accountability, when they make public confession/profession of faith … & are CONFIRMED in Holy Spirit by laying on of hands of Catholic priest.

'Super’Mario’s belief that scripture forbids infant/young child baptism is shown mistaken.

 

[MarioSr]

Randy,

In one breath you said that sprinkiling and christening were okay, but then in the next, you actually posted Scripture which contradicted it. You posted the following:

Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12and you were BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the new “circumcision of Christ” for all people of the New Covenant.

I don’t see how you miss the buried part. The Ethiopian Eunuch and Stephen went into the water, and the eunuch came out of it. You are entitled to believe your thoughts and feelings, but you have no Scriptures to support it.

Next you said that Lydia’s household was baptized, and you assumed that she had kids. What would make you not think that her kids were the age to understand and believe, such as a 10 year old. Can you please advise me the Scriptures that says someone, other than an apostle or someone an apostle gave special gifts to, can touch someone and they receive the Holy Spirit? Let’s just say that it was possible, which it was not, during the apostles tenure. Apostles had to have witnessed Christ’s baptism by John the Baptist until he ascended into heaven. If you didn’t witness it, you couldn’t be an apostle. When the apostles died, they couldn’t pass on the gifts. When the folks they passed it to died, the gifts ceased.

Have you ever asked yourself why Jesus was baptized as a young man? Jesus gave us an example in Matthew 3:13-17. The amazing part about His baptism, is His Church had not started yet. He was still under the Jewish law, yet the Holy Spirit descended upon him. Acts 2:38 tells us at Baptism we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Who was speaking in Acts 2:38? Peter.

1 Peter 4:11 says: IF ANYONE SPEAKS, HE SHOULD DO IT AS ONE SPEAKING THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

1 Corinthians 12:11 says: All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, JUST AS HE DETERMINES.

If you are going to speak, please use Scriptures (God’s very own words), if you have a problem with how HE DETERMINED the specifications for Elders and Deacons in HIS CHURCH, you should study His Word and be obedient to it.

 

[MarioSr]

BRB,

Please read the Scriptures I posted before you comment on what the Bible doesn’t say. I gave you the Scriptures to see what it says. What benefit do I have to twist the Scriptures by using Scriptures? I would say someone who posts doctrines of men to disprove Scripture is twisting Scripture to make a point.

Once again, Christ said I will build MY Church. He gave Peter the keys to the His Church. If you are in His Church, you are considered to be a member of His body, since the Church is His Body. How are individuals added to Christ’s Church? Through baptism, Acts 2:47. Before they are baptized, they are hearing Peter preach God’s Word. God’s Word is the keys to open the Kingdom.

If you still don’t believe that, please tell me who Peter gave the keys to when he died? Once again, once an apostle dies, he can no longer pass on gifts. The folks that the apostles passed gifts on to, could NOT pass the gifts on to others.

Peter died before other apostles. John was the last apostle to die. Was John a pope too? No, Sir. Peter spoke the first Gospel sermon (the keys) to Christ’s Church.

 

[MarioSr]

BRB,

Why wasn’t Jesus baptized as a baby? Why didn’t he just come back later and have John lay his hands on him? He gave us the best example in the Bible. You must be free-willing to be baptized. God did not make us robots, he gave us choices. How many babies had a choice? Then how many 6th, 7th, or 8th graders had a choice when they went through “confirmation”? Its amazing that the Scriptures don’t mention “confirmation”.

Who came up with that rule? Yes, man did.

 

[brb3]

Why wasn’t Jesus baptized as a baby? Why didn’t he just come back later and have John lay his hands on him? He gave us the best example in the Bible. You must be free-willing to be baptized.

How many babies had a choice? Then how many 6th, 7th, or 8th graders had a choice when they went through “confirmation”? Its amazing that the Scriptures don’t mention “confirmation”.

Who came up with that rule? Yes, man did.

Are you / I ] gonna have the audacity to tell Christ how he should of lived his life on earth ? :nope:

We know Jesus was filled with H.S. before the creation of the world. And we know John the Baptist was filled with H.S. from his birth. Was the Baptist ever baptized by another ? Who baptized him with H.S. ? John realized it was not necessary that he baptize Christ …yet, Jesus desired it of him, to fullfill scripture, to set example for us, and to allow John to see the sign of H.S. decending upon Jesus.

If Christ could fill John with H.S., from the womb, … can he not place H.S. within a baptized infant ? Catholics teach that Confirmation is essential to ‘complete’ water baptism when the infant comes to age of understanding / consent. For adults, both are done on same day. For infants / young children … there is the necessary time delay before Confirmation occurs.

Now, regarding ‘choice’ of 7th grader. We all have the choice to ‘believe’ or not. Those who don’t believe … receive nothing at Confirmation. Appears many may not of believed, … and later leave the Church, perhaps attracted by various heresies or protestant doctrines.

Who came up with the 30,000 protestant doctrines ? God or men ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

In one breath you said that sprinkiling and christening were okay, but then in the next, you actually posted Scripture which contradicted it. You posted the following:

Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12and you were BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the new “circumcision of Christ” for all people of the New Covenant.

I don’t see how you miss the buried part. The Ethiopian Eunuch and Stephen went into the water, and the eunuch came out of it. You are entitled to believe your thoughts and feelings, but you have no Scriptures to support it.

Mario-

I missed nothing. There is no question that baptism began as an immersion but within a few years, baptism by pouring or sprinkling had spread throughout the Church in every corner of the Roman empire.

Are you aware of any objections to this? :nope:

Instead, one of the oldest documents produced by the Early Church says this:

The Didache
After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. **A.D. 70]).

Note the date, Mario…AD 70. This means that Christians were baptizing by pouring and sprinkling within the lifetimes of some of the Apostles. Get over it.

Oh, one other point, the Catholic Church continues to baptize by immersion and pouring to this very day…just as the earliest followers of Christ did.

Next you said that Lydia’s household was baptized, and you assumed that she had kids. What would make you not think that her kids were the age to understand and believe, such as a 10 year old.

Can you prove that neither Lydia nor Cornelius nor the Philippian jailer had young kids? The fact is that scripture contains no prohibition against baptizing infants and the “confess with your lips” passage that you love to quote applies to ADULT converts only.

Can you please advise me the Scriptures that says someone, other than an apostle or someone an apostle gave special gifts to, can touch someone and they receive the Holy Spirit?

Scritpture is silent on this matter. What’s your point?

Let’s just say that it was possible, which it was not, during the apostles tenure. Apostles had to have witnessed Christ’s baptism by John the Baptist until he ascended into heaven. If you didn’t witness it, you couldn’t be an apostle. When the apostles died, they couldn’t pass on the gifts. When the folks they passed it to died, the gifts ceased.

Paul was an apostle. Did he witness Christ’s baptism? How about Barnabas?
Junias, Andronicus, Apollos? Silas? Timothy? Scriptures refer to all of these as apostles.

Have you ever asked yourself why Jesus was baptized as a young man? Jesus gave us an example in Matthew 3:13-17. The amazing part about His baptism, is His Church had not started yet. He was still under the Jewish law, yet the Holy Spirit descended upon him. Acts 2:38 tells us at Baptism we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Great. This is Catholic theology.

Who was speaking in Acts 2:38? Peter.

Right. Leading the Church as Jesus intended.

1 Peter 4:11 says: IF ANYONE SPEAKS, HE SHOULD DO IT AS ONE SPEAKING THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

1 Corinthians 12:11 says: All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, JUST AS HE DETERMINES.

If you are going to speak, please use Scriptures (God’s very own words), if you have a problem with how HE DETERMINED the specifications for Elders and Deacons in HIS CHURCH, you should study His Word and be obedient to it.

I have, I do and I will. I think.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you still don’t believe that, please tell me who Peter gave the keys to when he died? Once again, once an apostle dies, he can no longer pass on gifts. The folks that the apostles passed gifts on to, could NOT pass the gifts on to others.

Peter died before other apostles. John was the last apostle to die. Was John a pope too? No, Sir. Peter spoke the first Gospel sermon (the keys) to Christ’s Church.

Oh…I see the error now. You think Peter could not pass on his office to another person because you fail to understand the significance of the keys and the office of Royal Steward. Let’s address that quickly:

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)
In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.
We also know that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority.

Matthew 16:19

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end even though Peter died. The successors of Peter hold the eternal office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)
Peter has received authority from Jesus to speak in His name. To do so, Peter must not be able to teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

 

[brb3]

Once again, Christ said I will build MY Church. He gave Peter the keys to the His Church.

… please tell me who Peter gave the keys to when he died? Once again, once an apostle dies, he can no longer pass on gifts. The folks that the apostles passed gifts on to, could NOT pass the gifts on to others.

Peter died before other apostles. John was the last apostle to die. Was John a pope too?

Yes … Christ gave the ‘keys’ to Peter. And, He continues to distribute the ‘keys’ to Peter’s successors. Peter didn’t give away the keys before his death. No Pope is to do so. His post is for life. The H.S. is to select the next Pope, after the former one dies or leaves the Shepherd’s post.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Once again, Christ said I will build MY Church. He gave Peter the keys to the His Church.

Right. When did Peter give them back?

The keys passed to Peter’s successor, Linus, then Anacletus, then Clement and so on down to Benedict XIV today.

If you are in His Church, you are considered to be a member of His body, since the Church is His Body.

How are individuals added to Christ’s Church? Through baptism, Acts 2:47. Before they are baptized, they are hearing Peter preach God’s Word. God’s Word is the keys to open the Kingdom.

On Pentecost they did; however, the Philippian Jailer was baptized after hearing Paul preach, the Ethiopian eunuch after Phillip, etc.

If you still don’t believe that, please tell me who Peter gave the keys to when he died? Once again, once an apostle dies, he can no longer pass on gifts. The folks that the apostles passed gifts on to, could NOT pass the gifts on to others.

You are in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.

Jesus gave the keys to Peter. The Holy Spirit chose Matthias. God continues to pass the keys from one royal steward to the next in His royal court.

Note what Isaiah 22:22 says, “I [God] will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

God places the keys on the successors of the apostles. Not man.

 

[Randy_Carson]

BRB,

Why wasn’t Jesus baptized as a baby? Why didn’t he just come back later and have John lay his hands on him? He gave us the best example in the Bible. You must be free-willing to be baptized. God did not make us robots, he gave us choices. How many babies had a choice? Then how many 6th, 7th, or 8th graders had a choice when they went through “confirmation”? Its amazing that the Scriptures don’t mention “confirmation”.

Who came up with that rule? Yes, man did.

How many Jewish babies chose to be circumcised? None.

Their parents did following God’s instructions.

Christian parents baptize their infants for the same reason.