Which Peter?

Is this your question? There's no way to answer that. What, I need to prove that the Catholic Church would not consider Peter and Mary to be heretics? You just made that up, and it makes no sense; there's no need for refutation.

The only sentence ending in a question mark seems to be rhetorical, because you "answer" it right afterwards. Honestly, what issue are we Catholics "avoiding" here?

[ September 17, 2002, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

GraceSaves, what I'm saying is that Peter preached "Repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, (which was changed to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) by the RCC, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. (Acts 2:38)

Was this not the original plan of salvation ? Well, at least it gets one into "The Church." Right ?

This is what "Mary" believed also. She was with the 120 in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost. Don't you agree that the RCC today would call both of them, Peter and Mary, a "HERETIC ? "

MEE

 

The RCC did not change baptism from Jesus Christ to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus himself told the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the RCC had nothing to do with it.

19 "(19) Go therefore and (20) make disciples of (21) all the nations, (22) baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, - Matthew 28:19 NASB

 

Dualhunter, I thought everyone knew that was changed in 325 AD. PETER and the others always baptized in the "NAME" of "Jesus Christ" in the Bible.

When Jesus said to be baptized in the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "PETER" knew what that name was. That is why it was always done in the name of the Lord Jesus or Lord Jesus Christ. It was for the remission of sins. It was never done in the titles Father, Son, or Holy Ghost in the scriptures. Check it out!

Brittanica Ency. Vol. 3, Page 365-366
The triune and trinity formula was not uniformly used from the beginning, and, up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was so wide-spread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to St. Cyprian, said that baptism in the Name of Christ was valid. But the Catholic missionaries, by omitting one or more persons of the Trinity when they were baptized, were anathematized by the Roman Church. Now the formula of Rome is "I baptized thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost."
It's not scriptual! It was passed down by the RCC.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name (Jesus Christ) under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

This probably won't matter to some if water baptism is administered or not, but I do agree with the CC that baptism is a must. I just believe is should be done as it was done in the Bible.

MEE

 

Ok..this is quite a stretch. What you claim, with absolutely no proof, is that the CC doctored the bible after 300AD to change 'Jesus' to 'father, son and holy ghost'. The above quote does nothing to prove this. It only shows that the CC would lot allow people to baptize (if this is true) in any other way than with the three person formula. So what? Does that mean they changed the bible? It can't be proven, and I doubt it very much. For all it's faults, I feel the CC did a good job keeping the integrity of the bible when it was commisioned to do so....

How was it done in the bible again? Once again, you can't prove the original at all ...this is the problem we are stuck with. You are working on assumptions based upon something that isn't even related to bible translation issues (above quote). If this is the only argument you have to support this idea, you have absolutely no case....

 

MEE wrote. "but I do agree with the CC that baptism is a must."

MEE, and what if the persons dies on his way to being Baptized or what if a person places his trust in Christ while in a hospital bed just 3 weeks before death and never gets out of the bed?
(real example that just happened in my life)

Careful now. If you give even one exception it is not a must. Answer wisely.

MEE, the RCC has a "Baptism of Desire" clause in their theology. What do you have in yours?

In Love and Truth,
Brian

 

Hi Brian,

You wrote, "Carson, Ed said you were taking a break and you poped up anyway Take care and good luck with your studies. Remember, Scripture study is about forming doctrine even more then it is about proving doctrine."

Actually, I would say that Scripture study today has very little to do with forming doctrine. You see, I do not belong to a novel Christian sect that must reformulate doctrine according to whim. (Christians are not meant to reinvent the wheel every lifetime) The doctrine already exists, formulated as it is from Divine Revelation, given both in Tradition and that portion of Tradition, which has been laid down into the letter.

Scripture study, for me, is about assimilating the Word of God into my life, so that I may have life and have it abundantly.

God bless,

Carson

 

Derogatory tone aside..you DO belong to such a sect. It is called the catholic church. But, instead of calling it a 'whim', you (it) call it 'inspiration' or 'revelation'. The difference is that you are not allowed to object when it is clearly against God's nature or word.

As for 'Tradition', I have already addressed this and noone even responded to it to defend 'Tradition'. Seems it must not be all that important an issue.

When we all realize we are in the same boat, so much the better.

In Christ,
jason

 

Dualhunter, I thought everyone knew that was changed in 325 AD. PETER and the others always baptized in the "NAME" of "Jesus Christ" in the Bible.

When Jesus said to be baptized in the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "PETER" knew what that name was. That is why it was always done in the name of the Lord Jesus or Lord Jesus Christ. It was for the remission of sins. It was never done in the titles Father, Son, or Holy Ghost in the scriptures. Check it out!

Brittanica Ency. Vol. 3, Page 365-366
The triune and trinity formula was not uniformly used from the beginning, and, up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was so wide-spread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to St. Cyprian, said that baptism in the Name of Christ was valid. But the Catholic missionaries, by omitting one or more persons of the Trinity when they were baptized, were anathematized by the Roman Church. Now the formula of Rome is "I baptized thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost."
It's not scriptual! It was passed down by the RCC.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name (Jesus Christ) under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

This probably won't matter to some if water baptism is administered or not, but I do agree with the CC that baptism is a must. I just believe is should be done as it was done in the Bible.

MEE[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Don't have the Gospel of Matthew in your Bible? Even you admit that people early Christians were baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It's interesting to note that each time a person was baptized in the name of Christ, the text never denies that during the actual performance of the baptism, the person was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. What I mean by this is that a person baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit has associated his or herself with Jesus and hence has been baptized in the name of Jesus.

[ September 18, 2002, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Dualhunter ]

 

Hi Carson, Here are some scriptures that to me point to a study for content and for understanding not for confirmation as you elude to.

KJV:

"""[45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
John.5
[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Acts.17
[2] And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
[28] For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
Rom.15
[4] For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
2Tim.3
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Pet.3
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."""

Carson, Maybe I am confusing the issue by saying the word doctrine. What I am saying is not to be satisfied with any interpretation without careful study.

Also, Carson you talked about not having doctrine change yet over the years the Catholic Church has changed doctrine, and doctrine application. That is true, right?

In Christ,
Brian

 

Come now the RCC reformulate doctrine at the whim of the pope.

 

John

Doctrine does NOT change. Practice changes but doctrine does NOT change.....be wary of bearing false witness.

LaRae

 

Lets get technical here. Truth does not change, doctrine does and has over the past two millenia(yes, even in the CC). Be wary of using incorrect terms.

jason

 

Ok..this is quite a stretch. What you claim, with absolutely no proof, is that the CC doctored the bible after 300AD to change 'Jesus' to 'father, son and holy ghost'. The above quote does nothing to prove this. It only shows that the CC would lot allow people to baptize (if this is true) in any other way than with the three person formula. So what? Does that mean they changed the bible? It can't be proven, and I doubt it very much. For all it's faults, I feel the CC did a good job keeping the integrity of the bible when it was commisioned to do so....

How was it done in the bible again? Once again, you can't prove the original at all ...this is the problem we are stuck with. You are working on assumptions based upon something that isn't even related to bible translation issues (above quote). If this is the only argument you have to support this idea, you have absolutely no case....</font>[/QUOTE]NO CASE? Can you show me, in the Bible where the "act" of water baptism was done in the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Yes, Jesus said, in Matthew 28:19, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the "NAME" of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Peter in Acts 2:38 knew what that "NAME" was and that is exactly what was done through out the Bible after the NT Church was born. The CC did change the original in 325 AD. Ask any Catholic and they will tell you that it is the truth.

Reading your Bible should be all the proof you need as to how the saints were baptized, before it was changed.

MEE

 

Jason,

You bearn the burden of proof. Doctrine does not and has not changed. You bear false witness by saying otherwise.

LaRae

 

Brian, really one would have to leave that up to God. I would say, for an example, that God would have to take into consideration a lot of things. Like age, knowledge of the Bible, and accountability. Maybe other things, I don't know, I'm not God.

I don't know anything about the CC's "Baptism of Desire" clause. It must be something that they added to their doctrine.

I just go by the Bible.

MEE

 

From the Didache, 140 AD

"In regard to Baptism -- baptize thus: After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water."

Notice "and of the" in front of each name. It's not looking for one name to encompass them all. All three names are to be spoken. And this was written well before 300AD.

 

So...when the CC said that anyone outside of it was doomed and damned (early church), and then when it softened it's stance and said you could be outside as long as you longed to be inside...it didn't change? That is not changing doctrine?

Just from one link: CC Changes...has changed...and probably will change

Yet...look at the cathecism

and now JPII

&lt;sarcasm&gt;No, no..you are right...the CC never changes doctrine. Never, not once..ever....&lt;/sarcasm&gt;

The point of fact is that the CC HAS changed doctrine many many times over the years. This can't be debated, it is documented (another problem with having 'Tradition' being equal with scripture...one tradition changes...tradition is useless). So, next time you accuse someone of bearing false witness, make sure you do so accurately, lest you look quite silly.

What comes now? Probably some defense that I have hear before..but lets see...

In Christ,
jason

 

Webster says
doc·trine
Pronunciation: 'däk-tr&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin doctrina, from doctor
Date: 14th century
1 archaic : TEACHING, INSTRUCTION
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA

found

http://www.valleybible.net/resources/AdultEducationClasses/ChurchHistory/history.summary.catholic.shtml

The Beginning of Roman Catholic Practices

Prayers for the dead are practiced ....300 AD
Making the sign of the cross ....300 AD
Use of wax candles in worship begins ....320 AD
Veneration of angels and saints begin ....375 AD
The use of images begins 375 AD
The Mass as a daily celebration practiced ....394 AD
Beginning of the exaltation of Mary, as the term "Mother of God" used ....431 AD
Priests begin to dress differently from laymen ....500 AD
Extreme Unction, or last rite of anointing, practiced ....526 AD
The doctrine of Purgatory established by Gregory I ....593 AD
The Latin language for prayer and worship is imposed by Gregory I ....600 AD
Prayers are directed to Mary, dead saints and angels ....c. 600 AD
Title of "Pope" is officially given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas ....607 AD
Kissing the Pope’s foot begins with Pope Constantine ....709 AD
Temporal power of the Popes is conferred by Pepin, king of the Franks ....750 AD
Worship of the cross, images and relics, authorized ....786 AD
Holy water used, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest ....850 AD
Worship of St. Joseph begins ....890 AD
College of Cardinals established ....927 AD
Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII ....965 AD
Canonization of dead saints established by Pope John XV ....995 AD
Fasting on Fridays and during Lent begins ....998 AD
The Mass develops gradually as a sacrifice ....c. 1000 AD
Attendance at Mass made obligatory ....c. 1000 AD
Celibacy of the priesthood decreed by Pope Gregory VII ....1079 AD
The Rosary, or praying with beads, developed by Peter the Hermit ....1090 AD
The Inquisition instituted by the Council of Verona ....1184 AD
Sale of Indulgences begins ....1190 AD
Transubstantiation proclaimed by Pope Innocent III ....1215 AD
Confession of sins to a priest instead of to God begins (Lateran Council) ....1215 AD
Adoration of the wafer (Host) is decreed by Pope Honorius III ....1220 AD
Bible forbidden to laymen and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia ....1229 AD
The Scapular, or devotional garment, invented by monk Simon Stock ....1251 AD
Cup is forbidden to the people at communion by Council of Constance ....1414 AD
Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by the Council of Florence ....1439 AD
The doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed by the Council of Florence ....1439 AD
The "Ave Maria" prayer to Mary begins ....1508 AD
Jesuit order founded by Loyola ....1534 AD
Tradition declared as authoritative as the Bible by the Council of Trent ....1545 AD
Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent ....1546 AD
The creed of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official Church creed ....1560 AD
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX ....1854 AD
The Syllabus of Error is proclaimed by Pope Pius IX and ratified by the Vatican Council; condemning freedom of religion, conscience, speech,press, and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Church; and asserting the Pope’s temporal authority over all civil rulers ....1864 AD
The infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and mortals proclaimed by the Vatican Council ....1870 AD
The Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XI ....930 AD
Assumption of the Virgin Mary proclaimed by Pope Pius XII ....1950 AD
Mary proclaimed the Mother of the Church by Pope Paul VI ....1965 AD

 

Jason,

You need to look up some terms.

You aren't a heretic, pagan, nor are you schismatic. If you were born in a church of separated brethren, then that is wholly different than leaving the church (causing a schism) and forming a new, contrary church.

The new softer stance seems that way because it addresses previously unaddressed points.

Most of the people in the old church were forming heresies that in some way or another dimishes Christ as one person of the triune God. These were much more serious. Also, there was not the enormous number of churches that there are today, holding on to many of the most important Christian doctrines. Different times called for different statements.

If you leave the Catholic Church, then you're forfeiting your salvation, for you are forfeiting the truth she contains. If you are born in another church, this is no fault of your own; you were raised this way. In this, you also have an explicit desire for the truth. And while you may never actually find this truth in its fullest manifestation (the Catholic Church), this is certainly not held against you. You still trust in Christ as your savior, and share a common trinitarian Baptism.

I hope that makes sinse. Those were different times when the Church was facing different circumstances. It's not a contradiction or change, because those rules still apply (cause a schism, you forfeit your salvation). The new things applied in more recent times are merely explaining a previously unexplained case.