- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: As a Catholic, I view the pope the same as I do the English monarch
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:06 pm to BamaGradinTn
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:06 pm to BamaGradinTn
And there is this as well....
Galatians 2 (Peter went to the circumcised and Paul to the uncircumcised)
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Galatians 2 (Peter went to the circumcised and Paul to the uncircumcised)
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
This post was edited on 4/19/26 at 2:11 pm
0
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:08 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
Did you miss the (saved by grace) as in born again. You are splitting hairs.
There is no splitting hairs with the gospel. You are born again by believing the gospel. Water baptism saves no one. Now if someone believes the gospel and then they get baptized after to make a public proclamation to others then that is different. I'm not sure what you were inferring.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:12 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
Third: Through their successors, Bishops and the Pope are the successors of the Apostles, and the Pope, who is the successor of St. Peter. Remember, they replaced Judas, who betrayed Jesus.
No they aren't. And your example actually disproves your point:
Acts 1: 20-26:
"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,’[c]
and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.’[d]
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles."
To take the place of one of them...in this case, Judas...the replacement had to (a) been a follower with the others from the time Christ was baptized, and (b) been a witness to the resurrection. None of the bishops and Popes you refer to qualify. The notion that bishops and the Pope are successors to the Apostles are nothing more than Catholic tradition...fantasy, actually...and has absolutely no root in Scripture.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:13 pm to Canon951
quote:I know all of that. You are late to the debate so to you, I was inferring nothing in particular.
There is no splitting hairs with the gospel. You are born again by believing the gospel. Water baptism saves no one. Now if someone believes the gospel and then they get baptized after to make a public proclamation to others then that is different. I'm not sure what you were inferring.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:18 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
The notion that bishops and the Pope are successors to the Apostles are nothing more than Catholic tradition...fantasy, actually...and has absolutely no root in Scripture.
Well .. the very men who immediately followed the apostles disagree with you and so do every Christian after them until the reformation …. But hey don’t be bothered by details lmao
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:21 pm to crotiger0307
quote:
As a Catholic
quote:
Divinity is bestowed upon no man
Embarrassing to call yourself a catholic and then follow with that statement. The pope is not divine, and that has never been part of the catechism.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:23 pm to Diamondawg
Just wanted another to let us know who managed the selection.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:25 pm to Canon951
quote:
There is no splitting hairs with the gospel. You are born again by believing the gospel. Water baptism saves no one. Now if someone believes the gospel and then they get baptized after to make a public proclamation to others then that is different. I'm not sure what you were inferring.
What does Mark 16:16 say?
Go ahead and quote it for us. Don't be afraid.
It doesn't say "Whoever believes will be saved, and then it would be a good idea to be baptized to proclaim that to everyone."
Sure, we are also saved by faith. But we are also saved by our obedience to the Gospel.
"Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved". It's plain English, and as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. If you take out the second 1, you don't get 2. Baptism isn't just some public proclamation. It's an act of obedience to Mark 16:16. There are all kinds of ways someone can make a public proclamation. To reduce baptism to merely a public proclamation indicates a woeful misunderstanding of what baptism is all about. Being buried in the water and rising to live a new life is where, just as Christ died for our sins and was raised, we die to our sins and are raised to live a new life.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:26 pm to Guntoter1
what about Galatians 2 : 7-9? Any thoughts?
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:28 pm to BamaGradinTn
And all this time I thought the thief on the cross went to heaven. Guess he should have gotten baptized. Get real man. You pick one verse that says that when they are dozens that don't mention it. Baptism is not required. It is a work. 
There is also some evidence that Mark 16:16 is not even in the earliest manuscripts but you do you.
There is also some evidence that Mark 16:16 is not even in the earliest manuscripts but you do you.
This post was edited on 4/19/26 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:33 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
quote:
The notion that bishops and the Pope are successors to the Apostles are nothing more than Catholic tradition...fantasy, actually...and has absolutely no root in Scripture.
Well .. the very men who immediately followed the apostles disagree with you and so do every Christian after them until the reformation …. But hey don’t be bothered by details lmao
Those "every Christians"...does that include Popes that sent people off to kill thousands in the Crusades?
You make my point for me. You elevate those who came after the Apostles to the same importance, without providing any Scriptural justification whatsoever. They went on to get into the nasty businesses of buying and selling forgiveness as well as slaughtering people over control of the Holy Lands. So no...what those who came after the Apostles believed counts for absolutely zero from a Scriptural point of view. Unlike the Apostles, they clearly were not inspired by God.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:36 pm to Canon951
quote:
And all this time I thought the thief on the cross went to heaven. Guess he should have gotten baptized. Get real man. You pick one verse that says that when they are dozens that don't mention it. Baptism is not required. It is a work.
I should get real? Tell us then, oh Biblical scholar, when the forgiving of the thief by Jesus on the cross happened chronologically relative to the start of the Church.
The "thief on the cross" rebuttal often used just shows utter ignorance of when the Church was established, and the very obvious fact that Christ could forgive anyone he wants to, and certainly doesn't negate Mark 16:16.
Tell you what...find someone today that Christ has personally appeared to and said something similar to.
quote:
You pick one verse...
So you've never read Acts 2:38 either?
quote:
when they are dozens that don't mention it.
You could also go back and read about all the cases in Acts of people being baptized....Pentecost, the Ethiopian, etc. Then get back to me when you've "gotten real" and we can have an intellligent conversation on the subject.
This post was edited on 4/19/26 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:36 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
I know all of that. You are late to the debate so to you, I was inferring nothing in particular.
It’s amazing , baffling to me that every Christian since the ascension believed in baptism for 1500 years and you guys dismiss it without a second thought.
You even dismiss and disregard the direct words of the very apostles concerning baptism.
Please explain to me how every Christian before Luther was wrong about baptism but your theology is correct.
“He who believes AND is baptized shall be saved”
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:38 pm to BamaGradinTn
So when Jesus told everyone prior to his death that they had to believe in him he should have qualified that to say but wait til after I die and rise again? You don't know what you are talking about.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:40 pm to METAL
quote:
Not to mention, the context right after matters. Jesus gives Peter the keys and authority. That only strengthens the idea that He is in fact talking about Peter himself, not switching subjects mid-sentence to something abstract.
So no one else was given the keys and the authority from Jesus?
You’re arguing for a particularism with Peter that not even the early Fathers saw.
And you are arguing for Aramaic over the Greek. It’s ok to admit it.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:41 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
“He who believes AND is baptized shall be saved”
This is debatable as being in the earliest manuscripts. Salvation is by faith in christ with no works added. Baptism included. What about people who get saved on their death bed and can't get baptized?
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:42 pm to METAL
First of all, this is not an argument, it’s discussion. I honestly like to know where and how these things come from. I would never become catholic because I just see too much difference between what I read in scripture and what the Catholic Church teaches. And that is not being derogatory towards it.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:43 pm to Canon951
See if he’s handling snakes. We’ll see how seriously he takes Mark 16:9-20.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:44 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
baffling to me that every Christian since the ascension believed in baptism for 1500 years and you guys dismiss it without a second thought
Holy strawman, Batman.
Posted on 4/19/26 at 2:44 pm to the808bass
Yeah that is where I was headed next. Bunch of snake handlers in here...lol
Mark 16
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;
Mark 16
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;
Page 12 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News