July 17, 200719 yr Having studied the topic at length many times, I must agree with LBBC and say that I believe that baptism is one of the steps that must be taken to receive remission of sins. It was taught by Jesus and the apostles, it was practiced by them and passed on to the early church leaders. Every instance in the NT of conversion and/or salvation of a person after Jesus death involved baptism for the remission of sins. It is not the only step; but I do believe the scriptures show it to be a necessary step. This doesn't mean that I think I have it all figured out or that I think I am the only one who is right. I freely admit, I don't know the exact moment God chooses to save someone, that is his sovreign territory and he chose to keep that detail to himself. God's grace abounds and I feel confident in saying that if I hear and believe the Word, repent of my sins, confess him as the Son of God, our Savior and am baptised in His name, then I will recieve the remission of my sins, as promised. In that I am comforted that I have obeyed His plan of salvation, leaving nothing out, and in His mercy, I will be saved. I say this not to point out that I think any else is wrong. No, I say it only to share my view, one which I am prepared to discuss. But that is not the topic of this thread.
July 17, 200719 yr I believe the key word in Acts 2:38 is repent. Again in Acts 3:19 he says repent. Repenting is the accepting of Jesus as your savior and believing in Jesus is the way to salvation. Read John 3:16. Again as saidin an earlier post babtism is a sacrament that God asks of us to symbolize our death as a sinner and our resurrection as a christian and our salvation is not contingent on being babtized. He does say repent but he uses the word And. Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. He is joining the two together, it seems pretty important to me. I don't think its the only step nor the thing that saves anybody alone, but yeah, its the step that "washes" away our sins symbolically.
July 17, 200719 yr Well....that the one true Church is the Catholic Church, of course! All the rest were formed as a dissent to the Catholic Church. Can someone provide reference where that is in the Bible???
July 17, 200719 yr Can someone provide reference where that is in the Bible??? Where what is in the Bible? :confused:
July 17, 200719 yr Where what is in the Bible? :confused: Where "Catholic" church is in the Bible and that "the one true church is the Catholic church"??? Not being smart...please educate me. Originally Posted by rockmom Well....that the one true Church is the Catholic Church, of course! All the rest were formed as a dissent to the Catholic Church.
July 17, 200719 yr Where "Catholic" church is in the Bible and that "the one true church is the Catholic church"??? Not being smart...please educate me. Originally Posted by rockmom Well....that the one true Church is the Catholic Church, of course! All the rest were formed as a dissent to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the oldest Christian denomination, and traces back to the apostle Peter. Your question is like me saying "Show me in the Bible where it says 'the one true Church is the Southern Baptist church'." The proof is in the history of Catholicism.
July 17, 200719 yr The Catholic Church is the oldest Christian denomination, and traces back to the apostle Peter. Your question is like me saying "Show me in the Bible where it says 'the one true Church is the Southern Baptist church'." The proof is in the history of Catholicism. Again, not being smart...Where is Catholic in the Bible???
July 17, 200719 yr Again, not being smart...Where is Catholic in the Bible??? I'm not trying to be smart either. "Catholic" means universal. c.1350, "of the doctrines of the ancient Church," lit. "universally accepted," from L.L. catholicus "universal, general," from Gk. katholikos, from phrase kath' holou, from kata "about" + gen. of holos "whole" (see safe (adj.)). Applied to the Church in Rome c.1554, after the Reformation.
July 17, 200719 yr I'm not trying to be smart either. "Catholic" means universal. Thanks...this thread has certainly sparked my interest and has encouraged me to do some research. :thumb:
July 17, 200719 yr The Catholic Church is the oldest Christian denomination, and traces back to the apostle Peter. Your question is like me saying "Show me in the Bible where it says 'the one true Church is the Southern Baptist church'." The proof is in the history of Catholicism. I'm sorry, but I find the Petrine Doctrine to be ridiculous. Yes, the Catholic Church was the first organized Christian body. But this silliness with Peter being the first Pope and finding individuals, especially martyrs, that the Church can name as subesquent Popes is insulting. I understand that Jesus said he would build His Church on Peter, yet Paul is probably more responsible for the spread of the Gospel in the Gentile world. Why Irenaeous felt he had to compile a list of apostolic succession, I'll never understand, especially since there was no hierarcy until the 3rd century and papal primacy wasn't even asserted until late in the 2nd century. Not until the middle of the 4th century did Damasus I refer to the Roman Church as the Apostolic See. It wasn't until the 5th century that the Bishop of Rome was proclaimed "Rector of the whole Church."
July 17, 200719 yr I'm not trying to be smart either. "Catholic" means universal. I think its commendable that the catholic church is trying to unite all faiths under one belief, I too believe that is what the bible teaches. Yet if I substitute the the word catholic for universal and called it the "Universal Church" I still would not be able to find that in the bible. I would feel more comfortable with just calling it "The Church" myself or better yet, "The Church of God", thats found in 1 Corinthians 1:2.
July 17, 200719 yr I'm sorry, but I find the Petrine Doctrine to be ridiculous. Yes, the Catholic Church was the first organized Christian body. But this silliness with Peter being the first Pope and finding individuals, especially martyrs, that the Church can name as subesquent Popes is insulting. I understand that Jesus said he would build His Church on Peter, yet Paul is probably more responsible for the spread of the Gospel in the Gentile world. Why Irenaeous felt he had to compile a list of apostolic succession, I'll never understand, especially since there was no hierarcy until the 3rd century and papal primacy wasn't even asserted until late in the 2nd century. Not until the middle of the 4th century did Damasus I refer to the Roman Church as the Apostolic See. It wasn't until the 5th century that the Bishop of Rome was proclaimed "Rector of the whole Church." I concur. It is nothing more than revisionist history, a practice I find highly objectionable.
July 17, 200719 yr Author I think its commendable that the catholic church is trying to unite all faiths under one belief, I too believe that is what the bible teaches. Yet if I substitute the the word catholic for universal and called it the "Universal Church" I still would not be able to find that in the bible. I would feel more comfortable with just calling it "The Church" myself or better yet, "The Church of God", thats found in 1 Corinthians 1:2. Actually, you would find something very similar to a universal church (I'm not referring to Catholic here, folks, so don't get upset) in Revelations. It will be part of the New World Order set up by the Anti Christ.
July 17, 200719 yr When I first heard it, I disagreed. But upon further review, not having the means of salvation does not mean that heaven in unattainable. I agree with the Pope, what he said was that without the Catholic Church, and as CF999 put it, the re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice in the Holy Communion, no one could reach Heaven. How can heaven be attainable without salvation? Just curious.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.