prophet The Trinity came from scripture Not the church fathers.
You seem to be in denial the very apostolic fathers who knew the apostles all taught trinity.
your combat is they were Gnostic but from reading what they confess as their beliefs, Their beliefs go against Gnostic.
If you look at early history, you will see the “development” of the understanding of the Triune God. “Sola-scripturists” were all over the place on this one. Some denied Jesus divinity while others denied his humanity. The Holy Spirit worked through the Bride of Christ to make clear to Her what was not so clear to every one from scripture alone. It wasn’t until the 4th century that the Trinity was proclaimed a dogmatic truth within the Church. This is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth at work.
Wk The thing is The trinity is pretty well in scripture and The concept been believe many years before any church meetings.
The scriptures which were written many years before The fathers also to add to that it also in the OT so the trinity was a Truth already knew in contempt.
The church fathers etc... only approve from what was already being believe even before they.
Why won't anyone who believes you have to be water baptized answer this question? DOES THE HOLY SPIRIT SAVE YOU OR NOT????
-Clear scripture shows the Holy Spirit was received before they were water baptized....SO ANSWER MY QUESTION.....
Jesus already answered your question...
John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of
water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
steadfast can you answer this question in debate about baptism?
How is John 3;5 water=baptism when the Nt was not even in effect yet?
How do you see jesus own words flesh is born of flesh but spirit is born of spirit?
could it be that flesh born out of flesh is talking about literal birth? did you know we are born in water literal.
it seems jesus makes a clear distinction of flesh born of flesh (water) and spirit of spirit.
There is another View of this verse which I will quote from gotquestions.org
he second common interpretation of this passage and the one that best fits the overall context, not only of this passage but of the Bible as a whole, is the one that sees the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” as both describing different aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be “born again” or “born from above.” So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must “be born of water and the Spirit,” He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25) and the New Testament (John 13:10; 15:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:22), water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5).
To add to this scripture also puts The living waters which makes One ALLIVE come within the person
And baptism is one of the means by which we receive the Holy Spirit through God’s grace by the work of Jesus Christ.
That's just a flat out bunch of boloney. Period. There aren't many ways to
get the Holy Spirit, and baptism is not "one of those ways"...
NEW BAD NEWS- we must DO SOMETHING to "get" His grace.
The true GOSPEL- we only need to trust.
Ripley's - So you actually got an e-mail from the “real” Mary Ann Collins?
You aren't convinced? YOU write her. MaryAnnCollins@juno.com
Here's the bottom line, I asked you in the beginning if you were here to unite His church, or divide it. You said unite...YET YOU CONTINUE TO EXERT ROMAN CATHOLIC AUTHORITY. The only "true and VISIBLE church". In direct conflict/opposition
to scripture of Paul rebuking "I am of Cephas, I am of Apollo, I am of Paul..."
You continue to uphold "I am of Peter"...and the church fathers.
FINE! I AM OF CHRIST!
Rome has no authority. It's all make believe, lie, deception. Peter was not the "Bishop of Rome" therefore your entire basis of "
SOLE Apostolic Succession" falls.
So, let's get to the foundation: where's Peter, as the first Pope in Rome?
WHERE'S THE PROOF? PRESENT IT.
Steadfast~
Look at the WHOLE conversation:
Jesus: born again from above
Nicodemus: What? Go back in my mother's womb?
Jesus: unless a person is born from water and the Spirit, What is born from the flesh is flesh, and what is born from the Spirit is spirit.
Jesus tells us Himself what He means. Born of water parallels flesh, Spirit parallels Spirit; ie: born from above.
Poor John, later in the chapter he wrote: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life, instead of being utterly destroyed. John 3:16 CJB He forgot that baptism part.
And baptism is one of the means by which we receive the Holy Spirit through God’s grace by the work of Jesus Christ.
That's just a flat out bunch of boloney. Period. There aren't many ways to
get the Holy Spirit, and baptism is not "one of those ways"...
*** "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38
*** “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16
*** “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,” 1 Pt 3:21
Receiving the Holy Spirit … cleansing from sin … salvation … and you call scripture a “bunch of baloney”? I don’t know how it can be any clearer from scripture!
The uncontested teachings of the Early Church …. Over 1500 years with no evidence whatsoever of a contrary view …. Infant baptism practiced by nearly all Christians …
I think I’ll pass on the Gospel according to Baptists/Evangelicals and stick with scripture and what was passed on to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
My children have received this FREE gift of God’s Grace. They didn’t have to wait for me or a pastor to assess their faith. They didn’t have to respond to an altar call. They didn’t have to recite a “sinners prayer”. All they had to do was receive God’s free gift and allow God to sprinkle clean water on them, to cleanse them, to put a new heart in them and a new spirit in them, to turn their heart of stone into one of flesh, to put His Spirit in them and cause them to walk in His statutes.
You can call this “baloney” if you’d like but I will stick with scripture, the uncontested teachings of the Early Church, and the living witness of my children.
Ripley's - So you actually got an e-mail from the “real” Mary Ann Collins?
You aren't convinced? YOU write her. MaryAnnCollins@juno.com
You’ve established a rapport with her, so you have a better chance at finding out the truth about her. Take two seconds to shoot her an e-mail and ask her what order and/or convent she was in. We can cross reference it with the detailed records that either the order or the diocese will have. You’ll find that she is one of many fictitious nuns/priests that anti-Catholic Fundamentalists are so eager to cling to. They would rather learn about Catholicism from fictitious anti-Catholics than directly from the Catholic Church. You can find out for yourself or you can continue to perpetuate the deception.
Here's the bottom line, I asked you in the beginning if you were here to unite His church, or divide it. You said unite...YET YOU CONTINUE TO EXERT ROMAN CATHOLIC AUTHORITY. The only "true and VISIBLE church". In direct conflict/opposition to scripture of Paul rebuking "I am of Cephas, I am of Apollo, I am of Paul..."
You continue to uphold "I am of Peter"...and the church fathers.
FINE! I AM OF CHRIST!
Rome has no authority. It's all make believe, lie, deception. Peter was not the "Bishop of Rome" therefore your entire basis of "SOLE Apostolic Succession" falls.
So, let's get to the foundation: where's Peter, as the first Pope in Rome?
WHERE'S THE PROOF? PRESENT IT.
Ripley’s – How can you assert that I’m here to divide? There is division among the brethren regarding the understanding of baptism. Rather than relegating this part of the Great Commission to “non-essential” I’m hoping maybe we can come to agreement. Unity rather than division.
How am I asserting Roman Catholic Authority? Regenerative baptism is not unique to the RCC. It is held also by the Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants. So don’t side track the issue with your “I’m of Peter, I’m of Paul …..” line. We are all of Jesus Christ and most of us are of what his Apostles taught .... regenerative baptism.
I’ve already shown that Peter was the earthly leader of the Church. I provided TONS of scripture from both the N.T. and the O.T.. I showed it in it’s Jewish context as the “Al-bayit”. I provided references to Protestant biblical scholars who believe this too. And I’ve provided early church writings as well. You keep asking me to “prove it” but what more evidence do you need?????
wk~
Once again this view of baptism is in oppostition to the many, many, MANY verses that talk about faith/belief/trust only.
Anyway, back to my primary question: where's Peter as the Bishop in Rome?
** "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38
*** “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16
two things to Note.
When peter said acts 2:38 he did not believe salvation was for gentiles yet.
acts 2:38 was only for JEWS to bring them out of t he OT and into The NT.
When salvation came to the gentiles they got the holy spirit as they believe what peter was preaching.
peter later then said I believe by The grace of God that we are saved just like them.
who is Like them? is refering to what happen for the Gentiles they were a change how the holy spirit get in one believer Now.
acts 2:38 ties in with John baptism it. acts 2:38 was to prepared the jews to bring them into faith of the messiah.
No one today is born under the Ot so acts 2:38 is not something that meant to be done for all time.
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,” 1 Pt 3:21
Receiving the Holy Spirit … cleansing from sin … salvation … and you call scripture a “bunch of baloney”? I don’t know how it can be any clearer from scripture!
The uncontested teachings of the Early Church …. Over 1500 years with no evidence whatsoever of a contrary view …. Infant baptism practiced by nearly all Christians …
I think I’ll pass on the Gospel according to Baptists/Evangelicals and stick with scripture and what was passed on to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
Wk How about sticking with also The Historical part of scripture?
i already explain acts 2:38 in it Historical place Now let me hit 1 peter 3:21
Not to remove flesh of the flesh? How do you see that is peter talking about? I say it human weakness (sin)