Seeking the True Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Clevus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
On John 3:6, Christ was baptized in the Jordan, which is a river.** Romans 6:3-6, states being buried, referring to baptism, meaning a person would have to immersed to have the water over all of their body** so Catholics I have cited 2 Bible scriptures about baptism by immersion.

This example further in my mind shows to 2 different interpretations of this scripture. That is why Latter Day Saints to be believe the Bible to be correct, so far as it was translated correctly.
Read the whole verse:

3 Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were indeed buried with him** through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead** by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.

Not talking about the depth of the water, but that through Baptism, we were united with Christ in His death and resurrection.
 
Read the whole verse:

3 Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were indeed buried with him** through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead** by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.

Not talking about the depth of the water, but that through Baptism, we were united with Christ in His death and resurrection.
Bottom line, we understand the scriptures differently. Your attempts to get me see as you read these scriptures are useless.

Accept the fact that you baptize the way you do and we follow the mode of baptism of Christ himself. Spare me any follow up saying I still do not get it and only the arrogant Catholics have it right.
 
I think the true church is one that, in a broad sense, preaches the true word and rightly administers the sacraments. IMHO, these two things are the absolute minimum for a church to be a church.

Even using that broad definition, many churches/denominations fail this simple test. For one thing, many fall outside of rightly administering the sacraments, as many churches/denominations don’t even recognize sacraments. If women priests are a disqualifier, then the pool gets even smaller. When it comes to the word, it seems that progressive theology is destroying the mainline, while the itching ears of the prosperity gospel is leading many astray.

At the end of the day, IMO, one is left with the RCC, Orthodox, certain Anglican, certain Lutherans, certain Old Catholic, and perhaps certain Methodist denominations (their view of the Real Presence, in many cases, is sketchy at best).
 
Bottom line, we understand the scriptures differently. Your attempts to get me see as you read these scriptures are useless.

Accept the fact that you baptize the way you do and we follow the mode of baptism of Christ himself. Spare me any follow up saying I still do not get it and only the arrogant Catholics have it right.
IF there was one solitary Bible verse which said that you must be completely under the water to have a legitimate baptism, you would have an argument, but there is no verse among all the verses that speak of baptism in the NT that say so. Don’t misunderstand, I am not saying total immersion in the water is wrong at all, and many Catholic adults get baptized that way if their parish church is set up for that, not all are. The reason not all are, is because its not commanded by the Lord to be done that way only, simple as that. You assume Jesus was totally immersed, and that’s simply not clear from the Word of God, so making it a mark of the true Church is not correct.
 
Bottom line, we understand the scriptures differently. Your attempts to get me see as you read these scriptures are useless.
Which brings up the very valid question as to who is the authority to whom such differences should be appealed.

So…what’s your authority?
Accept the fact that you baptize the way you do and we follow the mode of baptism of Christ himself. Spare me any follow up saying I still do not get it and only the arrogant Catholics have it right.
Y’know…name calling like that is disrespectful and rude to say the least. (not to mentiona violation of CAF’s Forum Rules ) If you really don’t like Catholics then why are you here on a Catholic forum? I don’t go on Mormon forums and pick fights and bad mouth your true blues. Maybe you should rethink your presence here huh?
 
True, and they will call it “living expenses” rather than a “salary”, to make it sound like they don’t get rich off of it. 🤷
Again, its a living allowance, as needed, not a salary versus all the priests drawing those paychecks.
 
Again, its a living allowance, as needed, not a salary versus all the priests drawing those paychecks.
So what makes the priest’s wage just a paycheck and the missionaries just a living allowance? How much do you think a priest makes?
 
So what makes the priest’s wage just a paycheck and the missionaries just a living allowance? How much do you think a priest makes?
To compare the missionaries of my church, who receive nothing (they pay for their expenses while serving wherever called to serve) with your priests, makes no sense.

Your priests get a paycheck — the missionaries receive nothing.
 
To compare the missionaries of my church, who receive nothing (they pay for their expenses while serving wherever called to serve) with your priests, makes no sense.

Your priests get a paycheck — the missionaries receive nothing.
Don’t missionaries also serve for only a couple years? A priest serves for the remainder of his life, and has to retire at 75. Even then, a retired priest may be called to administer the sacraments.
 
Thedore Abu Qurrah. 9thy century Melkite Bishop of Harran, set out to answer the questions of how to find the true religion (Christianity) and how to find the true Church among those in his day who claimed to be. After he sets out and tries to prove Christianity is the true religion (as opposed to other Medieval Near Eastern contenders of his day: Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc.), he then realizes the problem of determining which group of Christians holds the true faith (Chalcedonians, Nestorians, Jacobites, Julianists, etc. the contenders in his day.) So Theodore is speaking directly to this issue of determining where Christ’s Church is to be found. He makes the following argument:

Note: I will give you the translators footnote about the ] from the get go. He (Lamoreaux) says: “One wonders whether the bracketed materials here and in what follows are not scribal interpolations and emendations – in short, attempts to bring Theodore more nearly into the fold of later orthodox ecclesiology. Their presence clearly offends against the sense of Theodore’s argument, which requires the bishop of Rome alone as guarantor of the six councils.” (Pg. 68, emphasis mine.)

Theodore writes:

“You should understand that the head of the apostles was St. Peter, he to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberias, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams, and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them,’ we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself [and the apostles themselves]. Rather, he meant nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome, [and the holders of the seats of the apostles]. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age,’ he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost,’ he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat. Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself [and the apostles themselves], this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean [them] by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabellius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others.* If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter [and the apostles themselves], then after [them] the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell,’ which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.” (pgs. 68-69.)

Source: Lamoreaux, John C. “Theodore Abu Qurrah” (Library of the Christian East Vol. I), Brigham Young University Press, Provo, UT: 2005
 
Don’t missionaries also serve for only a couple years? A priest serves for the remainder of his life, and has to retire at 75. Even then, a retired priest may be called to administer the sacraments.
Yes, so ---- they will go back to their lives prior to being called as missionaries ---- continue university, get married, acquire employment, or join the US Armed Services. Basically have a life, not being paid until retirement in the case of your priests ---- don’t retired priests receive some kind of retirement from Catholicism?
 
Yes, so ---- they will go back to their lives prior to being called as missionaries ---- continue university, get married, acquire employment, or join the US Armed Services. Basically have a life, not being paid until retirement in the case of your priests ---- don’t retired priests receive some kind of retirement from Catholicism?
Some sort, yes. But they are priests for life. The sacrament of Holy Orders has left an indelible mark on their souls. And in some places, they have a shortage of priests, so the retired ones are called upon to assist the “active” ones. I believe my parish has one such priest. Some priests have trouble even being retired, as money and resources to support them can be scarse.
 
Bottom line, we understand the scriptures differently. Your attempts to get me see as you read these scriptures are useless.

Accept the fact that you baptize the way you do and we follow the mode of baptism of Christ himself. Spare me any follow up saying I still do not get it and only the arrogant Catholics have it right.
I will ask again since you didnt answer the last one and that you just quoted the fact that Jesus was baptised in the Jordan river a couple posts back. If you believe the bolded statment above to be true do all of your (LDS) baptisms occure in the Jordan river?

Peace!!!
 
Again, its a living allowance, as needed, not a salary versus all the priests drawing those paychecks.
The priest’s “paycheck” pays for his minimal needs. He has one day off a week, and two weeks vacation a year, either visiting with family or a shrine.
 
I will ask again since you didnt answer the last one and that you just quoted the fact that Jesus was baptised in the Jordan river a couple posts back. If you believe the bolded statment above to be true do all of your (LDS) baptisms occure in the Jordan river?

Peace!!!
They occur wherever a person wanted to be baptized can be immersed, whether a font, swimming pool, or a river if that is case.

I quoted those scriptures as further evidence of baptism by immersion — not sprinkling or something else.
 
To be clear, if the proper priesthood authority approved such as your question stated fine. It would be exception not the normal — Jesus Christ set the example by immersion.
The Catholic Apostles changed it by continuing revelation.🙂
In my church, what you suggested would never happen, water significant to immerse would be found and used, whether in a font, swimming pool, a body of water.
The requirement was changed, but required the water to be “living” or moving water, therefore a swimming pool or font does not qualify.
 
The Catholic Apostles changed it by continuing revelation.🙂

The requirement was changed, but required the water to be “living” or moving water, therefore a swimming pool or font does not qualify.
A swimming pool or font does qualify, permitting a person to go into the font or pool to be baptized by someone holding the proper authority. I recognize that fonts in our churches, you would have get into to be baptized versus the fonts I have seen in the Catholic church that a person could not get into — obviously the sprinkling that happens.

Since when has continuing revelation been a part of Catholic doctrine? Who receives the revelation?
 
They occur wherever a person wanted to be baptized can be immersed, whether a font, swimming pool, or a river if that is case.

I quoted those scriptures as further evidence of baptism by immersion — not sprinkling or something else.
Thank you for your response.

I understand but now you have established a double standard. First you use the scripture to prove baptism by immersion is the only proper way because Jesus was immersed, then you disregard the next portion of the same scripture (in the Jordan river) because it is not convenient. Why the double standard? Why is one part of the scripture important enough to take literal but the other part not?

Peace!!!
 
Thank you for your response.

I understand but now you have established a double standard. First you use the scripture to prove baptism by immersion is the only proper way because Jesus was immersed, then you disregard the next portion of the same scripture (in the Jordan river) because it is not convenient. Why the double standard? Why is one part of the scripture important enough to take literal but the other part not?

Peace!!!
No double standard. You brought up the “Sahara water” example, to make your point.

Baptism by immersion is how Christ was baptized ---- no other way.
 
No double standard. You brought up the “Sahara water” example, to make your point.

Baptism by immersion is how Christ was baptized ---- no other way.
No I didn’t. I brought up the fact that Jesus was baptised in the Jordan river which you quoted as being how Christ was baptised and you have found another way to do this. The double standard is the fact that you state you must be immersed because Jesus was immersed but you don’t have to be Baptized in the Jordan river even though Jesus was. This is the definition of “double standard” if there ever was one.

Peace!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top