Ask a Catholic

[Randy Carson]

I have already shown examples of two TYPES of baptism: John's Baptism, and Christian Trinitarian Baptism.

And I've shown why John's baptism was no longer valid and those baptized under John's baptism had to be re-baptized.

I agree with you completely. But that is not the point.

John's baptism was one type of baptism, and it was superceded by another type.

There is no trinity, Jesus Christ IS the Father, Son and Holy Spirit....

Ah...oneness pentecostal, perhaps? A modalist? Noted Anti-Catholic Ron Rhodes points out your error this way:

It is inappropriate to draw theological conclusions from cross-referenced verses without giving due consideration to what other explicit and clear verses reveal on the matter. For example, Isaiah14:12 identifies Lucifer as the “morning star.” Revelation 22:16 identifies Jesus as the “morning star.” Ignoring other relevant verses, one inappropriately could conclude that Jesus is the Devil. Oneness Pentecostals are guilty of inappropriate cross-referencing in their treatment of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. 

I don't agree with Rhodes very often, but he got that right. 

The scripture you quoted is referring to the TRUTH not FAITH(unless you are saying the two are synonymous...), and faith only comes by hearing the Word of God

How did the believers hear the Word of God before the bible was written, huggy? The truth, the faith, the Word of God (here I am referring to the Bible and not Jesus) is supported by the Church and not by a book.

Is not Jesus the Word of God made flesh? Without the Word of God the church doesn't exist

And without the Church, the Bible would not exist.

Matthew 16:18-19 New International Version (NIV)
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

That scripture isn't in its full context. Jesus isn't talking about building his church on Peter (whom he rebuked later in that same chapter btw) but upon "revelation". If Peter was such a "rock" why did he deny Jesus 3 times?

Because he was afraid...a normal human reaction to the events of that night. ALL the disciples deserted Jesus, remember?

If you look at the scripture in it's full context, then the meaning is clear.

I have. A lot. And I am clear.

First, I have quotes from 25 Protestant scholars of a wide cross-section of denominations who (reluctantly) admit Peter is the rock. Here is a baptist:

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

"The word Peter petros, meaning 'rock,' (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter." (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

I have two dozen more like that. Would you like to see them?

Second, the scriptures say a lot more about Peter's position of authority. But let's deal with the denials.

John 21:15-19 – Refuting the “Reinstatement” Theory

In the closing chapter of the Gospel of John, we find a very poignant moment between Jesus and Simon Peter.

John 21:15-19
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." 16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." 17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

Catholics hold that this passage confirms Peter as the vicarious shepherd of the one flock of Christ (cf. John 10:11) and head of the universal Church. In contrast, many non-Catholics believe that because Peter had denied knowing Jesus three times before the cock crowed, this passage simply reveals the re-instatement of Peter to the position of Apostle. However, a closer look at the sequence of events following Jesus’ resurrection reveals that this is simply not the case.

In Matthew 26:56, we learn that when Jesus was arrested, all of the apostles fled in fear, “But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.” (Mt. 26:58) Consequently, if Peter’s denials of Jesus disqualify him as an apostle, surely the abandonment of Jesus by the others disqualified them, also. If this reasoning is followed, then Jesus had NO apostles after the resurrection! Further, according to scripture, Peter alone was reinstated by Jesus in John 21!

In the Gospel of Luke, we find the following reference to the Eleven on Easter morning:

Luke 24:9-10
When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

After the resurrection but before Peter’s reinstatement, Peter is referred to as one of the Eleven apostles. Since Judas Iscariot was dead by this time, we know that Luke is including Peter as one of the apostles.

Finally, we need to consider an important question regarding the inauguration of the apostolic ministry to which Jesus had called the Eleven:  When was Peter commissioned by Jesus, bestowed with the Holy Spirit and given the authority to forgive and retain sins? Was it in John 21? NO! It was days earlier as shown in the previous chapter of John:

John 20:19-23
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Here we see Jesus "sending" the Apostles—Peter among them—just as the Father had sent Him. Peter also receives the same commission and the same "breath of God" that the other Apostles received (except Thomas who was absent). All this occurred after Peter's three denials but before the supposed "reinstatement" in John 21.

Consequently, a few questions naturally come to mind. If Peter had yet to be reinstated by Jesus as is often claimed, why did Peter receive the same commission and the same authority to forgive or retain sins as the other Apostles who had not denied Jesus and theoretically did not need to be reinstated? (I say "theoretically" because ALL of the Apostles save John had abandoned Jesus on the night of His arrest.) If Peter's denial had somehow cost him his place, how could he be treated the same as those who were still Apostles in good standing?

No, Jesus commissioned Peter along with the other Apostles in John 20 because Peter was still an Apostle at that point--nothing had been lost by his three denials which the Lord had foretold. Later, on the beach, Peter received an additional commission - one that was also foretold in Mt. 16:18-19 - that he was to lead the Church as the earthly Vicar of Christ.

+++

Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria ("In Joan." 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the Eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the traditional view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.  Taken from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

---

The Catholic church does not have this revelation, they literally baptize in the "name of the father, son and holy ghost" of which, none are names but titles, the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ.

God's name is I AM.

Jesus claimed the Divine Name (‘I AM’)...that's what got Him killed.

Exodus 3:14
13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD,  the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

John 8:58
53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Why did the Jews want to stone Jesus if they did not believe that He was claiming to be God? Why did the Jewish Sanhedrin accuse Him of blasphemy and seek the death penalty from the Romans if He had not claimed to be God?