Your opinions on baptizing at home.

[Bethshaya]

Actually that doesn't say that the rank and file believer was to baptize at all.

Here is actually what is said:

Matthew
Chapter 28 16 The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. 18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Jesus only said those words to the Apostles.


edited to say: Fisheater beat me too it. :)

So Jesus never gave them permission to give others permission to baptise. He told THEM to do it. So "regular" believers, nor priests have been given that authority because Christ did not assign it to them, just to the apostles as quoted in scripture.

He did not say "and make disciples of men and give them all the power and authority that I have just given you". He told them to teach the truths he taught them and observe his commands. But he gave no authority to pass the authority. Or is there a scripture that specifically gives the Apolstles the right to pass on the authority to baptise?

If not, then none of the popes since Peter, nor priests or anyone since the original 13 in the scripture reference can baptise and the premise of the Popes being of a lineage to Peter and given all authority from Peter to carry on his duties holds true scripturally.

[RossLunch]

So Jesus never gave them permission to give others permission to baptise. He told THEM to do it. So "regular" believers, nor priests have been given that authority because Christ did not assign it to them, just to the apostles as quoted in scripture.

He did not say "and make disciples of men and give them all the power and authority that I have just given you". He told them to teach the truths he taught them and observe his commands. But he gave no authority to pass the authority. Or is there a scripture that specifically gives the Apolstles the right to pass on the authority to baptise?

If not, then none of the popes since Peter, nor priests or anyone since the original 13 in the scripture reference can baptise and the premise of the Popes being of a lineage to Peter and given all authority from Peter to carry on his duties holds true scripturally.

Beth, what you said.
Sure seems clear to me.
Thank you.

[Fisheater]

So Jesus never gave them permission to give others permission to baptise. He told THEM to do it. So "regular" believers, nor priests have been given that authority because Christ did not assign it to them, just to the apostles as quoted in scripture.

He did not say "and make disciples of men and give them all the power and authority that I have just given you". He told them to teach the truths he taught them and observe his commands. But he gave no authority to pass the authority. Or is there a scripture that specifically gives the Apolstles the right to pass on the authority to baptise?

If not, then none of the popes since Peter, nor priests or anyone since the original 13 in the scripture reference can baptise and the premise of the Popes being of a lineage to Peter and given all authority from Peter to carry on his duties holds true scripturally.

Acts1
[15]In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
[16] "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.
[17] For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.
[18] (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
[19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel'dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
[20] For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and `His office let another take.'
[21] So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
[22] beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us -- one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
[23] And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab'bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi'as.
[24] And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
[25] to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place."
[26] And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi'as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

Tit.1

[5]This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint presbyters in every town as I directed you,
[6] if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate.
[7] For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
[8] but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled;
[9] he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.
[10] For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party;
[11] they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach.
[12] One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
[13] This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
[14] instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth.
[15] To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted.
[16] They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.


A lot in here for the lovers of the Law also.....

[10] For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party;
[11] they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach.
[12] One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
[13] This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
[14] instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth.

[Emily]

Beth, what you said.
Sure seems clear to me.
Thank you.

+1000


And the scripture used by FE is from the RCC version.

Titus 1 actually reads:
6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe[b] and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient

And

Acts 1
20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: “‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[e]
and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.’[f]


Leaders, heads of household, etc are far different than what the RCC has built.


In the book of Revelation Jesus mentions how He hates the Nicolatians. The term is defined that the Nicolatians were men who Lorded themselves OVER others rather than being their leaders and shepherds.



The Pharisees were rebuked for being that way as well. Holding themselves up as holy and lording themselves over the laity. That was never Jesus' intent. He did not treat them that way and He never instructed them to do so.

[RossLunch]

+1000


And the scripture used by FE is from the RCC version.

Titus 1 actually reads:
6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe[b] and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient

And

Acts 1
20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: “‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[e]
and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.’[f]


Leaders, heads of household, etc are far different than what the RCC has built.


In the book of Revelation Jesus mentions how He hates the Nicolatians. The term is defined that the Nicolatians were men who Lorded themselves OVER others rather than being their leaders and shepherds.



The Pharisees were rebuked for being that way as well. Holding themselves up as holy and lording themselves over the laity. That was never Jesus' intent. He did not treat them that way and He never instructed them to do so.

Emily, I take a lesson from your signature bar. It had the intended effect on me.

[Fisheater]

+1000


And the scripture used by FE is from the RCC version.

Titus 1 actually reads:
6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe[b] and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient

And

Acts 1
20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: “‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[e]
and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.’[f]


Leaders, heads of household, etc are far different than what the RCC has built.


In the book of Revelation Jesus mentions how He hates the Nicolatians. The term is defined that the Nicolatians were men who Lorded themselves OVER others rather than being their leaders and shepherds.



The Pharisees were rebuked for being that way as well. Holding themselves up as holy and lording themselves over the laity. That was never Jesus' intent. He did not treat them that way and He never instructed them to do so.

But for you to be right .... You would have to dismiss 2000 years of Written and Recorded History .

The Bible is Catholic ... Written by those who Believed in the True Presence of the Eucharist as Paul teaches ... Christianity did not start 500 years ago ....

[Emily]

But for you to be right .... You would have to dismiss 2000 years of Written and Recorded History .

The Bible is Catholic ... Written by those who Believed in the True Presence of the Eucharist as Paul teaches ... Christianity did not start 500 years ago ....

No, it is not. The RCC began with Constantine. True Christianity are those who follow Christ.

That is the meaning of the word Christian (to follow Christ)

To be even more precise, Christianity began in Genesis 3 when God promised Adam and Eve that He would send a savior.

What the RCC has created does not reflect the simplicity of the Gospel and the relationship between the believer and their creator through Messiah.

The Gospel is the good news that we no longer needed intercessors (that is why the curtain was torn when Jesus said "It is Finished.")

The temple was destroyed and man once again had direct access to their creator as they did in the Garden of Eden. The second Adam, Jesus, paid our debt and made it possible. So when each person realizes they are a sinner and hear the good news of our savior, they can make the very sober decision to take up their cross and follow Him; die to self and be born again with His Holy Spirit as our deposit, teacher, counselor, and seal of redemption.

No priest, pharisee, sadducee, or any other intercessor is needed any more. Just like none were needed in the Garden of Eden.

[Emily]

Emily, I take a lesson from your signature bar. It had the intended effect on me.

It gets me often too. I sometimes will post something then I see that scripture and I go back and read and make changes to show His love rather than my own human flaws. All we can do is our best and He does the rest.

[Fisheater]

Since Paul giving instructions to Titus was not good enough for you... Here is Paul giving Timothy the same.




1Tim.3

[1]The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.
[2] Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
[3] no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.
[4] He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way;
[5] for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church?
[6] He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil;
[7] moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
[8]Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for gain;
[9] they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
[10] And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons.
[11] The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.
[12] Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well;
[13] for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[14]I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that,
[15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
[16] Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh,vindicated in the Spirit,seen by angels,preached among the nations,believed on in the world,taken up in glory.

What Church ...What religion ?

[Fisheater]

No, it is not. The RCC began with Constantine. True Christianity are those who follow Christ.

That is the meaning of the word Christian (to follow Christ)

To be even more precise, Christianity began in Genesis 3 when God promised Adam and Eve that He would send a savior.

What the RCC has created does not reflect the simplicity of the Gospel and the relationship between the believer and their creator through Messiah.

The Gospel is the good news that we no longer needed intercessors (that is why the curtain was torn when Jesus said "It is Finished.")

The temple was destroyed and man once again had direct access to their creator as they did in the Garden of Eden. The second Adam, Jesus, paid our debt and made it possible. So when each person realizes they are a sinner and hear the good news of our savior, they can make the very sober decision to take up their cross and follow Him; die to self and be born again with His Holy Spirit as our deposit, teacher, counselor, and seal of redemption.

No priest, pharisee, sadducee, or any other intercessor is needed any more. Just like none were needed in the Garden of Eden.

Here Emily you show your ignorance .... And I say that as loving as I can be .... The things you write here are just not factual .... Nor Historically correct .

The Catholic Church has lasted 2000 + years ... If it was not of God, would He of let it last this long ? How long did Luther's church last before it was divided .... Now look what we have 40,000 different truths .

Do you really believe that a loving God would have left us orphans ..knowing our human weakness to discern His Truth for ourselves?