The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Daniel_Keeran]

No.

Immersion, pouring and sprinkling are all considered efficacious. You have no iron-clad verse that REQUIRES immersion.

Baptism of infants was accepted in the days of the apostles as the scriptures suggest. You have no iron-clad verse that PROHIBITS baptism of infants.

Penance and purgatory are evident from scripture itself, but you misunderstand the verses and the purpose of purgatory. You have no iron-clad verse that PROVES that purgatory does not exist whereas I have many that suggest that it does.

Now, Daniel, I have a question for you.

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA?

C’mon, Daniel…this should be an easy one for you. Sola scriptura was one of the pillars of the Protestant Reformation along with sola fide, sola gratia, etc.

You should be able to knock this one out of the park without breaking a sweat.

I’m waiting.

Show me from the Bible why I have to prove anything to you from the Bible alone.

When Jesus said “whatsoever you bind…loose…” was he giving the Catholic church the right to define and change the terms of the gospel as FIRST received?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

[SIGN]I left out one change the catholic church made to the gospel first received.[/SIGN]

When Jesus said “whatsoever you bind…loose…” was he giving the Catholic church the right to define and change the terms of the gospel? Paul said, “If I or an angel…preach any other gospel…let him be accursed.”

Has not the Catholic church changed the gospel to a different gospel by the following?

1. changing immersion to pouring for baptism
2. baptizing infants who have not been taught nor repented
   3. teaching that innocent little babies are conceived and born in a sin that excludes them from God’s presence upon their deaths without "baptism"
3. teaching penance and purgatory as necessary for purification from sin, in addition to the blood of Christ

 

[stephraim]

There is no pope or anything similar in any NT passage and strikingly missing from the great unity passage of Ephesians 4.

There is no command of baptism by immersion in the NT and it’s strikingly missing from the Great Commission passage of Matthew 28.

I accept the authority of scripture without interpretation. This acknowledges God as my authority: sola Deo.

Again, Scripture without interpretation can lead to Arianism and far more. No Holy Spirit-protected authoritative body, no unity of doctrine. How is that “leading into all truth?”

 

[Randy_Carson]

When Jesus said “whatsoever you bind…loose…” was he giving the Catholic church the right to define and change the terms of the gospel as FIRST received?

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is no pope or anything similar in any NT passage and strikingly missing from the great unity passage of Ephesians 4. So you say the following:

I accept the authority of scripture without interpretation. This acknowledges God as my authority: sola Deo.

I have already answered that I believe what the scripture teaches about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But I avoid use of the term Trinity as it is not in scripture. Maybe start a thread on this.

You’ve answered volumes without specifically answering anything.

Accept authority of scriptures without interpretation? Then why do you tell others their interpretation is incorrect? It’s assuming an authority upon yourself.

So, am I correct in thinking you do not believe the Trinity is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, ONE God?

 

[stephraim]

3. teaching that innocent little babies are conceived and born in a sin that excludes them from God’s presence upon their deaths without "baptism"

Are you saying you don’t believe in original sin? Then why be Christian at all?

As for babies who die before baptism, the Church realizes that God is greater than all His sacraments, and if He chooses to save them, He will. Still the Church baptizes infants because She “lets the children come to [Jesus] and does not prevent them” Luke 18:15-16) and desires salvation for entire “households” (Acts 16:33)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is no pope or anything similar in any NT passage and strikingly missing from the great unity passage of Ephesians 4. So you say the following:

**Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Luk 22:31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.
Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.**

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Where in the Gospel is it mandated to baptize by immersion only (a discipline, by the way, not a doctrine)?

The Greek word for baptism is baptizo or baptisma that means to dip, plunge, immerse, overwhelm.

Why does St. Paul “chastise his body” and “fill up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”? Why did warn others that they might fall away? Didn’t he know they were ‘saved’?

Repentance and faithfulness are necessary but not additional cleansing/purification of sins by punishments or works. Paul was not saying Christ’s afflictions were lacking but that he Paul wanted to conform completely to His death. He is saying also that he needs to control his body to keep himself from sin; this is not punishing his body because it has sinned (penance).

Why does St. James pray often on his knees (a posture in the East used for begging forgiveness and repentance)? Didn’t he know he was ‘saved’?

I do not believe the false doctrine of eternal security. One must pray and beg God’s forgiveness just as Peter told Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Greek word for baptism is baptizo or baptisma that means to dip, plunge, immerse, overwhelm.

When you could twist the context of the early Church fathers to make a point that none of them specifically used the term “Pope” it was acceptable to take advantage of those writings to support your argument. When the same Church fathers state baptism differently than you present it now, you ignore that post and them. Why is that?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

So this is saying Peter is to be the ONE Shepherd?

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

So this is saying Peter is to be the ONE Shepherd of Christ’s flock, in the place of Christ on earth?

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

So this is saying Peter is to be THE HEAD of the church on earth and the basis of unity, and “keys” means he must also have successors to pass the keys on to?

Luk 22:31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.
Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

So this is saying that Peter had the sole duty within his appointed office as HEAD of the church, to “confirm” all other Christians?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

When you could twist the context of the early Church fathers to make a point that none of them specifically used the term “Pope” it was acceptable to take advantage of those writings to support your argument. When the same Church fathers state baptism differently than you present it now, you ignore that post and them. Why is that?

The ECF’s themselves are useful to document the changes in baptism and the emergence of the papacy.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The ECF’s themselves are useful to document the changes in baptism and the emergence of the papacy.

You twist everything around to fit your theology. Please provided documents from anyone to support what you’re saying.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Are you saying you don’t believe in original sin? Then why be Christian at all?

As for babies who die before baptism, the Church realizes that God is greater than all His sacraments, and if He chooses to save them, He will. Still the Church baptizes infants because She “lets the children come to [Jesus] and does not prevent them” Luke 18:15-16) and desires salvation for entire “households” (Acts 16:33)

By the fall of adam all have the opportunity to sin and do sin, but no scripture teaches that babies are sinful. Luke 18 teaches their innocence not their sinfulness. There is no evidence of infants in any of the household baptisms, (see Acts 16) or Terullian would not have encouraged delay of baptizing children till they are old enough to learn and decide for themselves.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So this is saying Peter is to be the ONE Shepherd?

Christ knew He was going to suffer, die, be resurrected and ascend to heaven when He said this.

So this is saying Peter is to be the ONE Shepherd of Christ’s flock, in the place of Christ on earth?

As I explained above, Christ was appointing a new shepherd on earth, to care for His sheep in His physical absence.

So this is saying Peter is to be THE HEAD of the church on earth and the basis of unity, and “keys” means he must also have successors to pass the keys on to?

Yes. With the power to bind and loose, he had full authority to establish a hierarchy of Apostolic succession.

So this is saying that Peter had the sole duty within his appointed office as HEAD of the church, to “confirm” all other Christians?

To confirm all Christians through the Church Christ established and gave Peter authority over and Peter’s successors.

St. Paul wrote a letter of correction to the Church of Corinth. In that letter he specifically told the Church to let a man prove himself. The Church had and still has authority, with a promise from Christ to be with it until the consummation of the world.

1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

 

[stephraim]

The Greek word for baptism is baptizo or baptisma that means to dip, plunge, immerse, overwhelm.

Yes, I forgot. My apologies. Still, when it’s impractical to submerge due to scarcity or persection, for instance, sprinkling and/or pouring are worthy solutions, thus the addendum to the Didache. It must still be viable alternative since Our Lord washed the feet of the Apostles by pouring. While this is not sacramental baptism per se, it does mark the institution of the priesthood; and since not all Apostles are recorded as knowing the baptism of John, we may assume this washing is significant. St. Peter even suggested Our Lord wash his hands and head (again, presumably by pouring). We must also remember that the manner of baptism, e.g. pouring, sprinkling, immersing, is a discipline, not a doctrine. That baptism regenerates and saves is.

Repentance and faithfulness are necessary but not additional cleansing/purification of sins by punishments or works. Paul was not saying Christ’s afflictions were lacking but that he Paul wanted to conform completely to His death. He is saying also that he needs to control his body to keep himself from sin; this is not punishing his body because it has sinned (penance).

That’s a good point. Still, every man may be saved despite his sins “though as through fire.” And if anyone speaks ill of the Holy Spirit, he will not “be forgiven either in this life or the next.” This implies forgiveness in the next life. Those in heaven need no forgiveness since “nothing unclean can enter” and those in hell can not be forgiven; thus, there is another place. The Jews called it Sheol. Those who can not “come to terms with their opponent” (ἀντίδικος, used of the devil in 1 Pet 5:8) will be “handed over to the judge and thrown into prison” and not released until the last penny is repaid (Matt 5:26; 18:34; Luke 12:58-59).

All these are topics for different threads.

I do not believe the false doctrine of eternal security. One must pray and beg God’s forgiveness just as Peter told Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8.

That’s good news.

 

[stephraim]

By the fall of adam all have the opportunity to sin and do sin, but no scripture teaches that babies are sinful. Luke 18 teaches their innocence not their sinfulness. There is no evidence of infants in any of the household baptisms, (see Acts 16) or Terullian would not have encouraged delay of baptizing children till they are old enough to learn and decide for themselves.

There is no evidence of **no **infants in any of the household baptisms. Cyprian does encourage infant baptism, and he’s almost contemporary to Tertullian.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Daniel myself and others have demonstrated a case from scripture that the office of Peters chair “the Pope” is not evident.

Tukfryer-

I have an unrelated but important question for you: Do you believe that salvation can be lost, or do you hold that the Bible teaches that once you are saved, you are always saved?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is no evidence of **no **infants in any of the household baptisms. Cyprian does encourage infant baptism, and he’s almost contemporary to Tertullian.

Hippolytus, writing about the same time as Tertullian, clearly supports it, and he was a disciple of Irenaeus.

Dan knows this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The ECF’s themselves are useful to document the changes in baptism and the emergence of the papacy.

Fascinating, isn’t it?

The gospel was delivered once for all to the saints, and little by little, the saints developed a deeper and deeper understanding of these truths.

With little or no regard, we throw around theological buzzwords that would have amazed the Apostles themselves.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Fascinating, isn’t it?

The gospel was delivered once for all to the saints, and little by little, the saints developed a deeper and deeper understanding of these truths.

With little or no regard, we throw around theological buzzwords that would have amazed the Apostles themselves.

He rejects their writings as containing truth, when it benefits his beliefs, without the support of any sources to backup his accusations.