Salty,there is one authentic fulfilled Priesthood. The Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
There are different “shares” into or “participations” of or “koinonia” of that ONE Priesthood of Jesus’.
The priesthood of all believers {that’d be Baptized people }.
The ministerial priesthood. That is like my Priest at the Parish.
The Episcopacy. The Bishop’s office. An example of that is your diocesan Bishop.
In fulfillment of Exodus 19, we see St. Peter teach us . . . .
1st PETER 2:7-9 7 To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner," 8 and "A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall"; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
CCC 1141 The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, "by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that through all the works of Christian men they may offer spiritual sacrifices."9 This "common priesthood" is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate:10
Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people," have a right and an obligation by reason of their Baptism.11
BTW, not all people go to Purgatory but all people that go to Purgatory will be in Heaven some day. We see in the Book of Revelation: " Nothing unclean gets into heaven ". Jesus of course died for our sins ..... but think about that verse.
Are some Baptists "historic revisionists " ?
Discussion in 'History Forum' started by lakeside, May 14, 2015.
Page 7 of 10
-
-
The "ye" refers to all believers. Every believer is a priest before God. There is no NT priesthood. This concept, the RCC concept of an authentic Priesthood is a heresy that needs to be denounced.
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
--In the OT Israel had a "High Priest" that could make an atonement for them and only once a year by entering into the holiest of holies.
Here we are told we have something much better: a great High Priest, Jesus Christ!
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
--The OT high priest often did not know the people of Israel. They numbered in the millions. But our Great High Priest knows each one of us intimately, and he is sinless, but because he became man, suffered as a man, can also relate to our sufferings.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
--In the OT only the Levites, and the only those of the family of Aaron could be priests and be connected with the duties of the priesthood. And only the High Priest could make an atonement and could come near to God.
But we, in the NT, are all priests and are able to come boldly right before the throne of grace. Why? Because every believer is a priest before God.
2. There is no liturgy.
3. We don't keep such because of our "baptism." How does two atoms of hydrogen compounded with one atom of oxygen give you a reason or obligate you to do anything. Absurd. Sounds like paganism to me.
An argument from silence is no argument at all.
Currently Zenas is arguing from silence for infant baptism. There is no infant baptism in the Bible, you will note that his argument is from silence. You can read anything you want to in the Bible--just like aliens from Mars and spaceships from Iowa. I can show you that in the Bible too, just like you can show me Purgatory.
Therefore how can you know for sure you will get into heaven being "unclean"? -
-
-
Very good Zenas, thank you.
Also Mary and Joseph followed Jewish law (Lk 2:22). They were still under the Old Covenant, and infant circumcision was its sign. So that's what they did. Mary wouldn't do something that would be bizarre in Jewish Law. She was a devout Jew. The New Covenant was not instituted until Jesus' ministry. So it was natural that Mary did not follow the New Covenant when performing the ritual on the infant Jesus. Jesus instituted Baptism during his ministry 30 years later.
Before John's ministry, Baptism was not practiced by Jews as such. Baptism was foreshadowed in Jewish law, (i.e., ritual washing when Gentiles became Jews and blood sprinklings to clean the altar). But John the Baptist was the first guy to actually make Baptism a specific practice. That's where he got his name. John's role was that he was "preparing the way of the Lord." Naturally, that preparation would include a prefiguration of the way that Jesus would save souls, which Catholics believe is through Baptism. (Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pt. 3:21, Mk 16:15-16 Acts 2:38) After Jesus was Baptised, He made Baptism the doorway to salvation and He sent his disciples to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mark 28:19). We presume from Scripture and early Christian writings that that included infants.
It is quite logical that most of the Baptisms in the Bible were on adults since Jesus had just instituted Baptism. If I was there I'd run into the water for a Baptism too. -
-
1. Direct and positive declarations?
2. Declarations from which facts that are not mentioned may be reasonably inferred?
3. Transactions and relationships from which facts that are not mentioned may be reasonably inferred? -
It is unwise to establish a doctrine from inference only, or in the case of infant baptism, a wished-for inference. Infant baptism was resorted to based on a false premise: That water can wash away original sin, and since infants have original sin, it must be washed away in baptism. As I said elsewhere: A false premise leads to a false conclusion. Infant baptism is supported only by tradition; it finds no warrant in scripture. Those who support infant baptism resort to the most incredible scripture twisting to try to justify it. -
-
Of course you don't believe baptism removes sin so you see no need for infant baptism. You say you go by the Bible but you don't. You go by Baptist tradition which is directly opposed to Biblical teaching. The Bible teaches plainly that baptism removes sin. -
-
Romans 10:9 says nothing about being saved by water
"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. "
What is "Baptist standard" for baptism?
How old was your daughter? -
-
-
-
-
-
-
"he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,"
Romans 10: "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."...... No water needed.
Saying that water takes away sin, is like saying circumcision takes away sin. They are symbols of being in the covenant community. Nothing more.
The age of accountability: this is an emotional topic and can get things off track. We can discuss, but probably need a new thread.
*Forgot you posted Acts22
"Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name". There is two commands there. Get up and be baptized is the 1st. Wash away your sins, calling on his name is the 2nd. Already in this post I showed where Paul states that it is the Holy Spirit that does the washing.
You stress the wrong part of the verse. It is the "calling on His name" that saves.
Page 7 of 10