No "Papacy" in Augustine's Sermon 295

[balshan]

Simple put, they are wrong because they separated from the Church Christ established 1,500 years earlier.

That is your personal fallible opinion.

How is it that you can't even see the obvious -- you follow the opinions of men.

before you would have any possible claim to them

If you don't want to understand Christ's Catholic Church, what are you doing here?

Again, you won't find the keys going to the other apostles or to you in scripture. You have made that up out of thin air.

CCC 881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock [Cf. Mt 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17]. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head" [LG 22; cf. Mt 18:18; Jn 20:21-23]. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

Simply put you follow the bad tree it was established by Satan and not Jesus. It teaches false doctrines, it has extremely bad fruit and it harms the flock. This proves you are separated from the church Jesus established.

You follow men and their opinions and that is because you follow wolves in sheep's clothing and they do love to dress up.

 

[balshan]

You haven't made a point yet

Surely [Shirley] you jest.... are you that new here? Most of the time I get accused of toooooo much ECF's.

great start

1. only Peter received them directly from Christ
2. keys represent authority [Isaiah 22 - Eliakim]
3. other examples that show authority -- Joseph, Daniel, Mordecai

you are on a Catholic board.... a few weeks ago I presented Protestant scholars, to no avail

No mainly you are accused of inane posts and taking what people post out of context.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

I'm making a point.

You haven't made a point yet

Now immaturity.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You don't have evidence for what you claim. You are so ignorant you can't even explain why Peter had to be exclusively given the keys. No verses, no historical documents, no quotes from Church Fathers in the first three hundred years. Nothing. Other catholics would at least look it up in a quote book, but you won't even do that. How can anyone take you seriously?

Surely [Shirley] you jest.... are you that new here? Most of the time I get accused of toooooo much ECF's.

QUOTE SOME EVIDENCE THEN!

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I admit Christ gave Peter keys.

great start

More immaturity.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I'm asking why you think he exclusively gave Peter the keys.

1. only Peter received them directly from Christ
2. keys represent authority [Isaiah 22 - Eliakim]
3. other examples that show authority -- Joseph, Daniel, Mordecai

Assertion, not evidence.
1. Where does Scripture say this?
2. Isaiah 22 references Christ's key, not the keys of the kingdom.
3. Not relevant to the topic.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That which you quoted. You quoted the CCC to present the Catholic position on the keys.

you are on a Catholic board.... a few weeks ago I presented Protestant scholars, to no avail

To me? Am I to search through all of CARM forms to find what you said a few weeks ago? Be reasonable man.

God Bless

 

[ramcam2]

No place in the bible does it say that Jesus personally water baptized anyone. John distinguished his baptism from Jesus' baptism. What it does say is

John 4:2
although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

Matthew 3:11
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

If water baptism was a perquisite for salvation, then Cornelius would have been water baptized, before hearing the gospel message. But the fact is, he heard the gospel message first, and as Peter was getting started on what he had to say, those listening to Peter were suddenly filled with the Holy Spirit first, before being water baptized.

Acts 10:44
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message

The sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit was so that those with Peter could witness the fact that God had accepted the gentiles by faith. Those with Cornelius, simply believed the gospel message. No where in Scripture is the instruction to be water baptized to receive salvation. The bible always speaks of FAITH in Jesus, as the necessity and only means of receiving salvation and eternal life.

baptism has the root word of the verb, 'baptizo" which means as a noun 'washing, immersion, ablution, etc...' are, normally and ordinarily, with the use of water. john used water and jesus too. john3: 22-26 seems to indicates jesus baptizing but john 4:2 says it is jesus' disciples who did the baptizing. whatever, the baptism of jesus conferred grace while the baptism of john did not (matt3: 11).

the baptism instituted by Jesus (water and spirit), john3 :3-5, is a pre-requisite for salvation (mark16:16; john3: 5). the story of cornelius receiving the holy spirit before baptism is an exceptional one. the sacraments like baptism are the normal means of salvation but that does not in any way limit God from choosing other methods if He so wills it.

 

[ramcam2]

Heres what you said;

"if not in the catechism, it is not catholic teaching/doctrine...... period!"

Doesn't sound like an appeal to scripture to me. Maybe because none of your doctrines and dogmas are in the bible.

all catholic doctrines and teachings can be explicitly and implicitly explained by using the bible.

 

[Buzzard]

[
Arch Stanton said:

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That which you quoted. You quoted the CCC to present the Catholic position on the keys.

you are on a Catholic board.... a few weeks ago I presented Protestant scholars, to no avail

Here is the link

No "Papacy" in Augustine's Sermon 295

yes, they were visible and belonged to the visible one sheephold/church that jesus established in jerusalem in 33ad and appointed peter (feed my sheeps, tend my lambs, etc...) as the shepherd here on earth. what were the other apostles? what was Paul?

forums.carm.org

 

[Buzzard]

WELCOME TO Catholic Responses 101
"God can do anything" argument:
When pressed to explain and defend any Catholic dogma,
doctrine, practice or pious belief it can get difficult to actually use
facts and reason in your rebuttals. Have no fear and simply state
"all things are possible with God."
When another nasty Protestant continues
to challenge your claims along the same lines as before,
quickly point a finger at them and ask them
why they cannot even bring themselves to
believe that God can do anything.
Always be sure to tell them that
their God is very small if your arguments are not true.

Remember:
if God can do anything...the doctrine or practice you are defending must be true
only applies to Roman Catholics, of course).

baptism has the root word of the verb, 'baptizo" which means as a noun 'washing, immersion, ablution, etc...' are, normally and ordinarily, with the use of water. john used water and jesus too. john3: 22-26 seems to indicates jesus baptizing but john 4:2 says it is jesus' disciples who did the baptizing. whatever, the baptism of jesus conferred grace while the baptism of john did not (matt3: 11).

the baptism instituted by Jesus (water and spirit), john3 :3-5, is a pre-requisite for salvation (mark16:16; john3: 5). the story of cornelius receiving the holy spirit before baptism is an exceptional one. the sacraments like baptism are the normal means of salvation but that does not in any way limit God from choosing other methods if He so wills it.

Amos 3:7​

7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing,​

but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.​

are you not glad for the promises of the Father
so you don't get deceived into
"yea; Hath God said"

Hosea 4:6​

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:​

because thou hast rejected knowledge,​

I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me:​

seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God,​

I will also forget thy children.​

 

[ramcam2]

Before we can answer this question, when was Peter given the keys of the Kingdom? After all, this is your doctrine to defend, not mine to undermine. There is nothing in Scripture that says he had exclusive authority, and clearly ancient Tradition doesn't back it either. He didn't get them in Matthew 16:19 because Jesus is talking in the future tense: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven". It has nothing to do with Isaiah 22, because the key of David was given to Jesus, not Peter: "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens." Revelation 3:7. And, every other time Peter was given any authority, it was generally given to the Apostles as a group. Don't forget, Jesus saying he will give Peter something doesn't mean he is giving it to Peter exclusively. So, what's your argument?

God Bless

who is the true messianic king, not merely the prime minister or the Messiah’s chief representative...Jesus or Peter?

 

[mica]

Nondenom40 said:
Heres what you said;

"if not in the catechism, it is not catholic teaching/doctrine...... period!"

Doesn't sound like an appeal to scripture to me. Maybe because none of your doctrines and dogmas are in the bible.

all catholic doctrines and teachings can be explicitly and implicitly explained by using the bible.

no, they aren't. you're just parroting what the rcc teaches. you believe what the rcc tells you, not what scripture actually says. you don't study it or understand it and have no HS guidance in it. that shows in your posts.

 

[balshan]

baptism has the root word of the verb, 'baptizo" which means as a noun 'washing, immersion, ablution, etc...' are, normally and ordinarily, with the use of water. john used water and jesus too. john3: 22-26 seems to indicates jesus baptizing but john 4:2 says it is jesus' disciples who did the baptizing. whatever, the baptism of jesus conferred grace while the baptism of john did not (matt3: 11).

the baptism instituted by Jesus (water and spirit), john3 :3-5, is a pre-requisite for salvation (mark16:16; john3: 5). the story of cornelius receiving the holy spirit before baptism is an exceptional one. the sacraments like baptism are the normal means of salvation but that does not in any way limit God from choosing other methods if He so wills it.

John used not a little bit of water it was flowing, running water. A river. Not a sprinkle it was full immersion. Jesus was baptised by immersion. It was the Jewish way. You show you knowing nothing about being born again. Nicodemus had already been physically born and fully immersed probably more than once.

Your institutions baptism are a joke and not a real baptism

John's baptism was one of repentance a word that the RCC does not understand at all.

 

[balshan]

all catholic doctrines and teachings can be explicitly and implicitly explained by using the bible.

No they can not.

 

[Buzzard]

who is the true messianic king, not merely the prime minister or the Messiah’s chief representative...Jesus or Peter?

Who is the Rock of the Church

Deut.32:3​

Because I will publish the name of the Lord:​

ascribe ye greatness unto our God.​

​

4 He is (our God) the Rock, his work is perfect:​

for all his ways are judgment:​

a God of truth and without iniquity,​

just and right is he.​

Ram;
Was Peter "The Son of the living God"
or was Christ ???????
Is Peter a God
Is Peter your God

 

[ramcam2]

Who is the Rock of the Church

Deut.32:3​

Because I will publish the name of the Lord:​

ascribe ye greatness unto our God.​

​

4 He is (our God) the Rock, his work is perfect:​

for all his ways are judgment:​

a God of truth and without iniquity,​

just and right is he.​

Ram;
Was Peter "The Son of the living God"
or was Christ ???????
Is Peter a God
Is Peter your God

Jesus chooses Peter as the rock (Aramaic: kepha) upon which to build his Church (Matt. 16:18-19).

Peter proclaims Jesus as the cornerstone, without which there could be no Church (Acts 4:11, 1 Pet. 2:6-7).

 

[ramcam2]

John used not a little bit of water it was flowing, running water. A river. Not a sprinkle it was full immersion. Jesus was baptised by immersion. It was the Jewish way. You show you knowing nothing about being born again. Nicodemus had already been physically born and fully immersed probably more than once.

Your institutions baptism are a joke and not a real baptism

John's baptism was one of repentance a word that the RCC does not understand at all.

the catholic church believes in the sacrament of baptism (water and spirit) as jesus said in john 3:3-5. water whether by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring are allowed and the use of Jesus' words invoking the trinity, '... in the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy spirit'

in the Didache... “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

 

[ramcam2]

No they can not.

i am sorry but that is the truth.

 

[ramcam2]

no, they aren't. you're just parroting what the rcc teaches. you believe what the rcc tells you, not what scripture actually says. you don't study it or understand it and have no HS guidance in it. that shows in your posts.

jesus promised the gift of infallibility to his church not to individual christians.

 

[balshan]

the catholic church believes in the sacrament of baptism (water and spirit) as jesus said in john 3:3-5. water whether by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring are allowed and the use of Jesus' words invoking the trinity, '... in the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy spirit'

in the Didache... “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

It is not a real baptism no matter what you say. Also the RCC doesn't know about scriptural repentance. I do not care what your RCC says, it lies.

 

[balshan]

jesus promised the gift of infallibility to his church not to individual christians.

Jesus did not.

 

[balshan]

i am sorry but that is the truth.

No that is not the truth.

 

[Nondenom40]

all catholic doctrines and teachings can be explicitly and implicitly explained by using the bible.

No they can't. Or you wouldn't need your ccc.