Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#102 Jun 3, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
http://www.bible.ca/cath-why-I -left.htm
Although, I agree with this site on their assessment of Catholicism, I see it somewhat as more of the same old stuff. One of my friends in the coc also converted from Catholicism. His life did change (the rules changed) but his main issue was baptismal regeneration. He did not have to give that principle up to become a coc. He was required to be re-baptized into another church which also claims to be the only true church with the correct formula for baptism.

In some ways the coc and the rcc have common ground but despise each other.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#103 Jun 3, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Although, I agree with this site on their assessment of Catholicism, I see it somewhat as more of the same old stuff. One of my friends in the coc also converted from Catholicism. His life did change (the rules changed) but his main issue was baptismal regeneration. He did not have to give that principle up to become a coc. He was required to be re-baptized into another church which also claims to be the only true church with the correct formula for baptism.
In some ways the coc and the rcc have common ground but despise each other.
Agree. I readily admit that, as does one of my elders. He has said that he has seen no other group as close to the RCC as the coc. I think in many ways the mindset is the same. Perhaps they dislike the other because the other has the nerve to declare itself the "one true church", when it's obvious they should be the "one true church"!

I have argued strongly before with you about baptismal regeneration; I still believe there are some differences between RCC and coc doctrine on baptism. But there are similarities, and I do agree with them on some aspects-but not on all.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#104 Jun 3, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree. I readily admit that, as does one of my elders. He has said that he has seen no other group as close to the RCC as the coc. I think in many ways the mindset is the same. Perhaps they dislike the other because the other has the nerve to declare itself the "one true church", when it's obvious they should be the "one true church"!
I have argued strongly before with you about baptismal regeneration; I still believe there are some differences between RCC and coc doctrine on baptism. But there are similarities, and I do agree with them on some aspects-but not on all.
People cannot accept change that comes quickly, so take your time with the flock and love them every step of the way. God has never meant for us to become stoic. God changes us day by day, we should never think we have arrived at all knowledge but we can know the Master of all knowledge and find our peace in him.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#105 Jun 3, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
But Mike I was baptized in the church of christ! Were you re-baptized when you became a catholic, if so why? Was it because baptist baptism is invalid?
No, The CC accepts any Trinitarian baptism. The Catholic Church teaches 1 Baptism.

It is in the Creed. " I believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of Sins"
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#106 Jun 3, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree. I readily admit that, as does one of my elders. He has said that he has seen no other group as close to the RCC as the coc. I think in many ways the mindset is the same. Perhaps they dislike the other because the other has the nerve to declare itself the "one true church", when it's obvious they should be the "one true church"!
I have argued strongly before with you about baptismal regeneration; I still believe there are some differences between RCC and coc doctrine on baptism. But there are similarities, and I do agree with them on some aspects-but not on all.
The COC is just another non-Catholic Christian community. To the CC it is the same as Methodist or Baptist. In fact, I really did not know what the COC taught different until about 2 years ago.

I think they are similar to those Baptists who believe in the "Trail of Blood" theory.

That is why they go after Baptists so much.

Both have a complete disregard of history.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#107 Jun 3, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
The COC is just another non-Catholic Christian community. To the CC it is the same as Methodist or Baptist. In fact, I really did not know what the COC taught different until about 2 years ago.
I think they are similar to those Baptists who believe in the "Trail of Blood" theory.
That is why they go after Baptists so much.
Both have a complete disregard of history.
Trail of blood theory? Huh?

Disregard of history? Hardly. Knowledge of history? Yes. Agreement with RCC version of history? Absolutely not.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#108 Jun 3, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, The CC accepts any Trinitarian baptism. The Catholic Church teaches 1 Baptism.
It is in the Creed. " I believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of Sins"
Don't care about your creed. But how about those who don't believe baptism is for remission of sins?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#109 Jun 3, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, The CC accepts any Trinitarian baptism. The Catholic Church teaches 1 Baptism.
It is in the Creed. " I believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of Sins"
Baptism as in immersion only or any form which would not be one baptism.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#110 Jun 6, 2013
Trinitarian baptism with water.

The way the 1st century church did it.

The Didache was written around A.D. 40 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "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." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

"Sprinkling" was foretold as a way in the OT

Ezekiel 36

25 I will sprinkle clean water over you to make you clean; from all your impurities and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
26
m I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh
William

Birmingham, AL

#111 Jun 6, 2013
What happens if there is no water around to baptize someone when they decide to be saved?

So much for that whole "today is the day of salvation" thing then, huh.
He is Coming Soon

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#112 Jun 6, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
The CC, based on Bible, teaches Jesus left Peter in Church of the Church. The Bible proves the Primacy of Peter in many places.
Protestants will use 2 verses, out of context, to refute the many, many, things that support this.
One is where Paul 'rebukes' Peter for sitting at the wrong table. There is nothing doctrinal about this but Peter deserved it. His politics were not good in that instance.
The other one is when Jesus says get behind me Satan. He told his closest friends that he “must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.”
Peter, being the protector (remember, he attacked the guard when Jesus was arrested), promised to protect the Lord “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” But Peter was thinking in earthly terms, and this is why Jesus tells him “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.” Jesus, being the son of God, wants always to do God’s will. This is what he was explaining to his apostles-what God’s will for him was.
When all the Apostles are listed together, every time but one I think lists Peter first and Judas last.
The moment Jesus met Peter he named him Cephas which means Rock in Aramaic.
Peter is the only man in the world to walk on water.
Jesus would often preach from only Peter's boat which represents the Church.
More to come.
If Peter was the first pope, why didn't Paul salute him in his "Epistle to the Romans?" And, shouldn't the "first pope" have been the one to have addressed the Church of Rome? f Peter were the designated head of the church, why are there only 2 letters from him?
He is Coming Soon

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#113 Jun 6, 2013
William wrote:
Paul confirms the primacy of Peter to the folks at Rome.
Check out Romans 17.
And Paul "withstood him (Peter) to the face." Such disrespect for the "head of the church!"
He is Coming Soon

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#114 Jun 6, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
The CC, based on Bible, teaches Jesus left Peter in Church of the Church. The Bible proves the Primacy of Peter in many places.
Protestants will use 2 verses, out of context, to refute the many, many, things that support this.
One is where Paul 'rebukes' Peter for sitting at the wrong table. There is nothing doctrinal about this but Peter deserved it. His politics were not good in that instance.
The other one is when Jesus says get behind me Satan. He told his closest friends that he “must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.”
Peter, being the protector (remember, he attacked the guard when Jesus was arrested), promised to protect the Lord “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” But Peter was thinking in earthly terms, and this is why Jesus tells him “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.” Jesus, being the son of God, wants always to do God’s will. This is what he was explaining to his apostles-what God’s will for him was.
When all the Apostles are listed together, every time but one I think lists Peter first and Judas last.
The moment Jesus met Peter he named him Cephas which means Rock in Aramaic.
Peter is the only man in the world to walk on water.
Jesus would often preach from only Peter's boat which represents the Church.
More to come.
Kephas is "STONE." All throughout Holy Scripture, ONLY the Lord God is referred to as a "ROCK."
He is Coming Soon

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#115 Jun 6, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on, you really believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters? Does the bible say half brother anywhere/
What is the Aramaic word for cousin or uncle or aunt. There is none. They used brothers and sisters. I think Bobby has a bunch of Brothers and Sisters in his Church. I guess they are all related by DNA.
Gal. 1:19.
He is Coming Soon

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#116 Jun 6, 2013
Ahhhh, those "wonderful" successors of St. Peter: Guilty of everything from adultery to murder!
William

Columbus, GA

#117 Jun 6, 2013
Paul had to roll up on "the first pope" and James took over from Peter in that Jerusalem church ("hearken unto ME" he says, with Peter in attendance).

So much for that supposed authority.
William

Columbus, GA

#118 Jun 6, 2013
James 1:19 indeed.

That is the same James that took over from Peter in the Jerusalem church. Not the one who wrote the epistle to the 12 tribes of Israel, scattered abroad (James 1:1).
William

Columbus, GA

#119 Jun 6, 2013
Galatians 1:19, I meant.

Dad-gum phone typing.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#120 Jun 7, 2013
He is Coming Soon wrote:
<quoted text>If Peter was the first pope, why didn't Paul salute him in his "Epistle to the Romans?" And, shouldn't the "first pope" have been the one to have addressed the Church of Rome? f Peter were the designated head of the church, why are there only 2 letters from him?
with your limited knowledge of the history the Bible, it will take a long time. Why wasn't there writings from all of the Apostles in the Bible? We not not 100 % sure who wrote many of the scriptures. Many were not signed.
Who wrote the Book of Mark and how do you know?
Where does it say in the Bible what scriptures should be in the Bible.
Where in the Bible is a future book mentioned that will contain all the Truth that will self interpret?
Where does it say in the Bible that you should leave the Church which is the pillar and foundation of Truth?
You don't follow the Bible. You follow yourself. You are your own Pope aren't you?
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#121 Jun 7, 2013
He is Coming Soon wrote:
<quoted text>Kephas is "STONE." All throughout Holy Scripture, ONLY the Lord God is referred to as a "ROCK."
It was the first time in recorded history a man was named Peter. Any significance to that?

So Jesus said " Therefore you are Peter, a stone, but upon me I will build my Church" ?

Why even mention Peter? Tell me that verse makes sense the way you try to read it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
dr.joel smithers (Sep '16) Sep 7 Lurliec 5
Jessica Griffith Star News Personality Arrested... (Jul '11) Jul '17 Jay Kendricks 9
Why They Left: Listening to Those Who Have Left... (May '12) Jul '17 Barmsweb 48
How many of the 10 commandments have you broken? (Feb '12) Jul '17 Barmsweb 151
Johnny Robertson, when were you baptized? (Apr '15) Jun '17 Sig Fife 20
Looking Jun '17 Captain Hotdog 1
i want to be Christian.can i ? (May '15) Jun '17 Captain Hotdog 10

Martinsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Martinsville Mortgages