Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Interesting to see that you, as a Catholic, agree with me. You might want to review your Catechism # 87 before you do that again...
Of course, as you know, NO Lutheran denomination claims any spiritual authority. Jerry Kieschnick does not insist that he and he alone is the Vicar of Christ or that it is absolutely essential for salvation that every human creature be subject to him. NO Lutheran denomination claims that Jesus personally founded it or that it is infallible or that it is the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, or what whenever it's clergy speaks, Jesus is speaking, or that all must accept whatever it says "with docility." I think the remarkable claims of which we are addressing are those made by the RCC and LDS, each by self exclusively for self exclusively.
.
Isn't the act of baptizing a claim of "spiritual authority" ?
Which Church does not claim the authority to baptize ?
This is indeed the topic of the thread.No. (And I wonder why you choose to not discuss the topic of this thread?)
NO Lutheran denomination claims any unique authority to Baptize - in fact, none claims any authority to baptize AT ALL. It's CHRISTIANS that have the authority to Baptize, not the exclusive Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (USA). Now, in PUBLIC (and baptism is NORMALLY a public rite), the people ask the Pastor to act in their stead to Baptize, but the command, responsibiliy and authority to baptize rests with CHRISTIANS and not with ANY denomination - exclusively or otherwise.
Now, could we return to the issue of the thread? And HOW the RCC substantiate the remarkable claim it exclusively makes for it exclusively and the validity and credibility of that substantiation?
.
(And I wonder why you choose to not discuss the topic of this thread?)
But what should be happening is the RCC and LDS...
<unsubscribe>
-snip-
If the RC and the EO had waited for scripture to claim the authority to baptize, there would be no baptizing until the scriptures (NT) had been written and disseminated.
The scriptures record the apostles being granted the authority to baptize from Christ, and then granting that authority to others in advance of this being described in scripture. The act always precedes the recording of the act.
This is indeed the topic of the thread.
Every Church claims the authority to baptize. The Churches who derive authority to do so from scripture interpret scripture in baptizing.
Both the RC and EO accept baptism by other Churches when receiving converts.
If the RC and the EO had waited for scripture to claim the authority to baptize, there would be no baptizing until the scriptures (NT) had been written and disseminated.
The scriptures record the apostles being granted the authority to baptize from Christ, and then granting that authority to others in advance of this being described in scripture. The act always precedes the recording of the act.
you're disclaimer in brackets notwithstanding, there would be no reason to mention satanists whatsoever if you were not making a deliberate and meanspirited dig.After you expend effort correcting me as to how CJ wasn't really making loaded statements, you come up with this gem.
Why do Protestants and satanists do this? (Entirely valid question since I once knew a satanist who asked a loaded question.)
[/size]
Jesus Christ
The way we get it from Christ is by Christ giving it to us.
The reason I answered in that fashion is be because I already know that the historical roots of the Catholic Church and the lines of apostolic succession have been demonstrated in these forums countless times. I doubt that you would accept those proofs if I demostrated them once again. So what else am I to say? The answers have been given by Catholics and rejected by protestants. What other answer would you have me give?
The reason I answered in that fashion is be because I already know that the historical roots of the Catholic Church and the lines of apostolic succession have been demonstrated in these forums countless times. I doubt that you would accept those proofs if I demostrated them once again. So what else am I to say? The answers have been given by Catholics and rejected by protestants. What other answer would you have me give?
Your last paragraph does not make sense given your first paragraph.
Anyway, the deal is they knew from Christ Jesus what from the OT what baptism was.
I don't believe that the topic is baptism or the authority of Scripture, Thekla. Isn't it about the claims of some churches to exclusive validity? I think that's it.
Hi Thekla. I was baptized in the RCC when I was young. I left them in '68. For some reason I felt I had to be rebaptized, so I ended up getting it done in the Gulf of Mexico by a Pentecost minister, a friend of my brother. [kept an eye out for shark fins thoughIf the EO and the RC claimed "exclusive validity" they would rebaptize all converts. They don't
If the EO and the RC claimed "exclusive validity" they would rebaptize all converts. They don't
Sorry for the confusion !
The apostles had to be taught by Christ how to interpret the OT (as Luke records in the beginning of Acts, of Christ's teaching for the 40 days after His resurrection; and as John records in his Gospel that the apostles did not at the time of certain events understand their link to the OT).
The apostles baptized and then authorized others to baptize. Later, this was recorded in writing. The action preceded the recording of the action.
The writers of scripture recorded what was seen, taught and done. If authority is derived from scripture there would be no baptism of the New Covenant (but only the baptism of John) before the writings of the NT were recorded and disseminated. And in areas that did not yet receive the writings of the NT there would be no baptism of the New Covenant.
But that assumes a coherent theology, and EO/RC theology lacks coherence, due to having to compromise God's way with its own. That theology discounts personal conversion and replaces it with water baptism, which is said to effect salvation simply due to its form. So this theology has to make compromises that do not make sense without long and involved casuistry.If the EO and the RC claimed "exclusive validity" they would rebaptize all converts. They don't
Every Church claims the authority to baptize.
But not every church claims exclusive right to teach the truth, to declare, even modify God's commands, as Rome does (and the EOC is complicit is this claim).This is indeed the topic of the thread.
Every Church claims the authority to baptize.
Actually, I only know of two denominations that claim the authority to baptize: the RCC and LDS.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?