Updated 03:46 pm.EST, Mon November 23, 2009

Missions|Wed, Jul. 09 2008 08:33 AM EDT

Evangelism Teams to Plant Churches in 40 Ukrainian Cities

By Michelle A. Vu|Christian Post Reporter

A major evangelistic campaign that seeks to plant 40 churches in 40 Ukrainian cities within five weeks will kick off at the end of this month.

The ambitious campaign to start 40 new churches within a short period of time is only the first of two phases of Project 125, which has a goal of planting churches in 125 cities in Ukraine before the country’s national election next fall.

Forty ministry teams – 20 from the United States partnering with local volunteers and 20 Ukrainians – will participate in the series of evangelistic campaigns beginning July 28 until Aug. 25.

During this period, each team will travel to a city without an evangelical church to hold a weeklong evangelistic outreach that will begin on a Tuesday and end on Monday. The team will invite people during the week to attend a citywide “freedom” crusade, held Friday through Sunday. In the past, each crusade usually resulted in about 500 decisions for Christ.

Then on the Monday following the crusade, new believers and those interested in learning more are invited to attend a praise/testimonial service where trained church planters will set up the new church and enroll attendees in an eight-week discipleship program.

About 40 trained church planters in Ukraine have volunteered to move with their families to one of the cities to help start a church.

The organizations leading Project 125 are the Ukrainian Baptist Union, the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board (IMB), and the Don Betts Evangelistic Association.

“This is the largest cooperative event we’ve done,” said Don Betts, whose ministry has conducted similar crusades in Ukraine for 18 years, to The Christian Post. “There are 25 states there and we’ve led crusades in 19 of those 25 capitals in that country.”

Betts explained that while he doesn’t expect the crusades during this campaign to be as large as his single events in the past, he noted the combination of the campaign’s crusades will be the largest cooperative effort his ministry has ever done.

“And it’s the most work I’ve ever done,” Betts added jokingly.

There will also be separate children’s crusades conducted in each city. The evangelistic teams will invite children at youth clubs, soccer games, on the streets and at orphanages to attend the crusades. Rented buses will then be provided to take the children to the events.

Another part of the project effort is to provide basic supplies to orphans that the teams will be visiting. American churches are helping to raise money to buy school supplies and clothing for the children in orphanages.

“Thousands of these items are needed,” Betts said. “One orphanage had 300 children with no shoes. Efforts are under way to provide each child with a backpack containing a metric ruler, a set of colored pencils, ballpoint pens, watercolor paints, pencils and erasers.”

Additional teams are being recruited to go to Ukraine next year to complete the 125 city goal.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
  • Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    We agree baptism of the Holy Spirit being a needed component for salvation. We agree that baptism by water is something we should do in obedience.

    We disagree that water baptism is needed for salvation. We disagree that water baptism alone will do nothing for children - they must repent, believe, and turn to God and live lives that show their repentance..

  • Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    msnchris70 - Sadly, wbmoore and myself have shown you that infantile baptism is not scriptural and you simple reject it.

  • Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Sadly, I have shown scriptural proof on the need for Baptism and the need to be born again.

    You simply reject my interpretation and the interpretation of Lutherans, Orthodox, Methodists, Presybterians, Reformed, Anglicans.

    I'll just tell 85% of christianity they are wrong. NOT.

    You have both failed to produce any scripture that is contrary to the scriptures that we "MUST BE BORN AGAIN" and right after that they went and baptized people.

    Yes the Holy Spirit gave faith to some people before. This part of scripture does not say they were "Born Again" at all. Only that the Spirit was working with them. If they refused baptism then they would not have been saved.

    They did the right thing, were baptised and hopefully they were saved by persevering in the faith.

    If you don't persevere in your faith you will not be saved.

  • Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "WATER IS WATER"
    Amniotic fluid is water. Baptism by water was never mentioned until the next section.

    "We also see in many passages I've already posted that the Holy Spirit comes to you at Baptism."

    And you were wrong. Acts 10:39-48 is an example of being saved by faith and being baptized with the Holy Spirit before being baptized in water. So your theory falls short of the facts.

    " So, Water and Spirit are together. No one in 1650 years ever thought that to be "Born Again" was anything else than Baptism. It is a "new" invention.

    Just because we have no written evidence did not mean it was not a belief others held but were afraid to express (because of what the Catholic church would do). As well, just because the leading denominations are wrong does not mean everyone should continue to be wrong.

    "Yes, there are a lot of people who experience an emotional event where they accept Christ and turn from their former lifestyle. This version of born again is not consistent with scripture. It is a great thing, but "

    Yet again, scripture proves you wrong:
    2 Corinthians 7:10
    Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

    How can you argue that emotion should not be a component of a saving experience, when Paul wrote it leads us to repentance which leads to salvation?

    "the true definition of "Born Again" is to be baptised."

    No. 'Born Again' means to have gone through a first birth (water in physical birth), and a second birth (spiritual in Holy Spirit baptism).

    "Today, definitions are getting redefined like marriage, like what is a human being, etc. In a time full of relativist views I will stick with the Traditional definitions. Baptism was always considered how you are "Born Again" and I'm sticking with where the scriptures point and the strong historical witness.

    But you are not sticking to Scripture. You are not sticking to what Christ taught, nor Paul.

    "You simply cannot provide any historical witness to match your redefinition of born again. ALL MUST BE BORN AGAIN TO BE SAVED, including infants. You must have a relationship with God, and that is established through baptism."

    But you are totally ignoring scripture that says the children already HAVE that relationship with God (Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15; Lk 1:41-44; Mt 18:2-6; Mt 18:10; Mt 19:13-15; Lk 18:15-17; Ps 8:2; Mk 9:36-37; Isa 40:11). You are ignoring scripture that says Paul was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17), but that we were all baptized by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13) when we came to faith.

  • Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "The Thief on the cross was the exception and not the rule. This thief had what is called the "Baptism of desire". This thief accepted Christ and desired this covenantal relationship but ofcourse he could not have it happen. "

    It was his faith that saved Him, just as it does everyone. Acts 8:14-17 is an example of being baptized with water, and not having received the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:43-47 is an example of believing and being baptized with the Holy Spirit, and then were baptized with water. Acts 16:31 shows no need for water baptism to be saved, just belief. Water baptism is an expression of faith, just as confessing Christ, or calling on the name of the Lord. These things show we have faith, and show obedience. It is the Christ who saves us because of the faith we have, which we show by our actions.

    "A soldier who has just received Christ and dies on the battlefied before properly getting baptized would also have this baptismal desire."

    There is nothing speaking to a desire for baptism in scripture. But there are plenty of examples baptism not being required for salvation (Luke 23:42-43;John 3:36; Acts 16:31). Baptism, confessing Jesus, and calling on the name of the Lord are actions that gives evidence of the faith that saves us.

    "The New covenant with GOD is only established one way. Paul describes baptism as the new circumcision."

    I can't find this verse, please give where you got this idea from.

    But even if you are right, it is the heart turned to God that matters.
    Romans 2:29
    No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

    " I don't think you should dismiss this analogy so quickly. Only babies are circumcized."

    As star2 pointed out, this is not true.

    "The New Covenant is established through being "Born anew" through water and Spirit. The water symbolizes nothing but water. To suggest amniotic fluid is such a stretch because there is no other passages that suggest we must have amniotic fluid washed over us.

    When Christ is talking about birth, it is not a stretch to think He meant the first birth we undergo being what he described as 'through water', especially when he said 'Flesh gives birth to flesh'. To believe it is water baptism is a stretch, when baptism was not mentioned in the context.

  • Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    MsnChris70,

    "Thank you for the links below."

    you're welcome.

    "there is nothing in the Word that says that children will be treated differently."

    I think its crystal clear that God treats children differently than adults. He's done it repeatedly. Num 14:28-35 and Deut 1:37-39 shows the children were not held responsible for the actions of the adults. In Neh 8:1-3 only those who could hear with understanding were required to listen to the word of God - again indicating an age of accountability. Isa 7:15-16 shows the Bible recognizes there is a time when we are not aware of right and wrong.

    Deut 24:16 and Eze 18:20 say each person is responsible for his own sins. Rom 7:9 shows Paul was alive before the Law came (when he learned right and wrong) and died after it came. In Jn 9:41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains". He's saying that until people know the difference between right and wrong, they are not culpable of sin.

    So apparently, while we all have a sin nature, there is a time when we are not aware of right and wrong (Is 7:16), and not held culpable for what we do wrong (Jn 9:41). If we are not culpable for our sins, we are innocent and do not need to be justified to go to heaven upon death. Once we know the difference between right and wrong, we are culpable for our sins (Rom 7:9). It is the fact that people sin is why we can not be with God unless we are saved. Jesus came and died for our sins, so we might be justified (declared innocent) through faith in Christ (Romans 3:23-24).

    How do we understand 'all have sinned'? We know this phrase can not apply to Jesus, for Jesus is without sin (Hebrews 4:15). It probably does not apply to Enoch or Noah (Genesis 5:24; Genesis 6:9). In Romans 2:6-11, to look at context, we see that Paul is speaking about people who have done things. God "will give to each according to what he has done." But infants have certainly done nothing, and young children have done nothing for which they are culpable (Rom 7:9). Therefore, the only valid understanding of this term, 'all have sinned' is to understand that only people who know the difference between right and wrong and not always done right.

    for more info: http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/what-happens-to-infants-or-children-when-they-die/

    "The covenant with God is not established by faith alone. "

    You are wrong. The relationship is exactly established by the faith that saves us through grace (Eph 2:8; 2 Thes 2:13).

  • Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:14 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    msnchris70

    Re:"While reading these links they all tend to be very subjective and hopeful...However, there is nothing in the Word that says that children will be treated differently."

    No Chris 70 there was nothing subjective in those links. Scripture was given with sound reasoning. That is something you have not and can not do for your position. Your explanations so far have shown that you have almost zero understanding of the Word of God.


    Re:We also see in many passages I've already posted that the Holy Spirit comes to you at Baptism.

    Not so Chris70. You receive the Holy Ghost when you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. (John 20:22)

    On the evening of the first day of the week, Jesus appeared unto the disciples, showing them His hands and sides proving to them He has risen from the dead said,

    John 20:22 - "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:"

    Re:Yes, there are a lot of people who experience an emotional event where they accept Christ and turn from their former lifestyle. This version of born again is not consistent with scripture.

    You are wrong again Chris70. When you become born-again you become a new creature in Christ Jesus (2 Cor 5:17). God gives you a new nature created in righteousness and true holiness. (Ephesians 4:24)

    2 Corinthians 5:17 - "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are new."

    Ephesians 4:24 - "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."

    One who has experienced a changed life after having received Jesus from their heart as Savior and Lord will tell you that thier life changed supernaturally after their believed on and received Jesus. It wasn't something they had to do themselves. Catholics cannot understand that because they have never experience a true new birth in Christ. (continued)

  • Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:11 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    msnchris70 - continued


    Re:"Only babies are circumcized."

    Really? That would be news to Timothy. Paul had him circumized not as a baby but as an adult.

    Acts 16:1-3
    1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
    2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
    3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

    Also Chris70 Abraham was called in uncircumcision not circumcision. God considered him righteous because he believed (Romans 4:1-13)

    Romans 4:13 - "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

    The doctrine of infantile baptism violates John 1:12-13. John 1:12-13 says that no human can impart salvation to another human being. Infantile baptism is imparting salvation to another human being.

    Countless people have died and gone to hell because they placed their faith in the doctrine of infantile baptism. All infants who died, baptized or not, went to Heaven because of the faithfulness and righteousness of God.

  • Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    wbmoore,

    Thank you for the links below. While reading these links they all tend to be very subjective and hopeful. I can't blame them as I hope for this too. However, there is nothing in the Word that says that children will be treated differently.

    The covenant with God is not established by faith alone. The Thief on the cross was the exception and not the rule. This thief had what is called the "Baptism of desire". This thief accepted Christ and desired this covenantal relationship but ofcourse he could not have it happen. A soldier who has just received Christ and dies on the battlefied before properly getting baptized would also have this baptismal desire.

    The New covenant with GOD is only established one way. Paul describes baptism as the new circumcision. I don't think you should dismiss this analogy so quickly. Only babies are circumcized. The New Covenant is established through being "Born anew" through water and Spirit. The water symbolizes nothing but water. To suggest amniotic fluid is such a stretch because there is no other passages that suggest we must have amniotic fluid washed over us.

    WATER IS WATER. We also see in many passages I've already posted that the Holy Spirit comes to you at Baptism. So, Water and Spirit are together. No one in 1650 years ever thought that to be "Born Again" was anything else than Baptism. It is a "new" invention.

    Yes, there are a lot of people who experience an emotional event where they accept Christ and turn from their former lifestyle. This version of born again is not consistent with scripture. It is a great thing, but the true definition of "Born Again" is to be baptised.

    Today, definitions are getting redefined like marriage, like what is a human being, etc. In a time full of relativist views I will stick with the Traditional definitions. Baptism was always considered how you are "
    Born Again" and I'm sticking with where the scriptures point and the strong historical witness.

    You simply cannot provide any historical witness to match your redefinition of born again. ALL MUST BE BORN AGAIN TO BE SAVED, including infants. You must have a relationship with God, and that is established through baptism.

  • Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    msnchris70,

    You see star2 differently than I. I see confidence in God, and His word, and a distrust of anything that contradicts either. I think her confidence is well placed. God places leaders in our lives, without doubt. However, just as without doubt, the final authority is God, not man. Men can be wrong. *I* can be wrong, as can you, as can star2. Because of this, everything taught by men must be verified against the Scriptures (just as the Bereans did). If what is being taught goes against scripture, we must agree with Scripture, not man.

    I find her research to be accurate. I have yet to see her post anything that is not a plausible reading of Scripture.

    You called her description of illumination from God through prayer a new revelation, a new theology of God. But it is not. Others have held this position for centuries. It is also supported by Scripture. Just because others do not agree does not make it right or wrong. But the fact is, others hold a similar position - myself for instance, and I am not the only one (not that it matters if others agree with God to make Him right).

    Articles against infants going to hell upon death (I may not agree with everything used herein, but I do agree with the end result - infants being in the presence of God upon death):
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2255
    http://www.probe.org/founders-corner/jimmy-answers-his-e-mail/do-babies-go-to-hell.html
    http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/infantsa.htm
    http://therefinersfire.org/babies_go_to_heaven.htm
    http://www.prairielakeschurch.org/clients/1/File/going%20deeper/Baptism_Infants.pdf

    Articles against infant baptism:
    John MacArthur http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/infbap.htm
    http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns209.html
    http://www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html

  • Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    msnchris70

    I already discussed with Tallguy1000 the scriptural evidence that infants, should they die, go to heaven. If you are interested, my discussion can be found on my Tues Jul 15, 2008 6:08pm post.

  • IHS »
    Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    I will say that while I may not agree with infant baptism, per se it doesn't mean I'm not open to it since it sounds reasonable from scripture and is backed up with historical facts that everyone did it.

    Also, we practice infant dedications which is also not in the New Testament. I now do not feel comfortable doing dedications because these are a Mosaic law and are more about the Nazarite way than anything else.

    I find Star2 to be very difficult to deal with. Her ego is too much for me!

    I'll email you msnchris70 offline to discuss baptism with you. Do you have EvanCal's email by chance?

  • Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:08 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Star2,

    I have no problem discussing issues with wbmoor, or believer or even brotheraaron. I find them to have strong opinions, but I do not find them unreasonable. I also see how they actually will look up information upon request. I find this type of debate very fruitful and engaging.

    I do not find discussions with you, Online or swordbearer very fruitful at all since the three of you combined are not willing to educate yourself and only go by your own feelings. The three of you are also not willing to look at historical record which helps prove how the majority of Christians interpreted the scriptures.

    You star2 are a different breed. Maybe it is just your own personal issues. Online and swordbearer maybe belligerant at times and ignorant, but you have this sublime sense of ego I've never encountered with anyone else.

    I have never found someone who thinks she knows everthing and also thinks she speaks for God. Your lack of humility is amazing to me.

  • Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Star2,

    First you can't support your view of Baptism and infants going to heaven using scripture, then you tell me that you had a conversation with GOD ALMIGHTY and he gave you a "NEW" Revelation and now you mention that six others might disagree with me.

    Are you now a person of consensus? I think not, you could only find six people who agree with you. I have John 14:6, Tallguy, EvanCal, IHS, Irenaus, etc. So I have five people that agree with me.

    Funny enough I also have 85% of Christianty that agrees with me too and says your wrong! We have used scripture, we have shown you historical proofs as well and all you've done is say "I don't agree with you." Your response is typical from the Tradition you represent.

  • Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    msnchris70

    You know chris70, as far as I am concerned the entire RCC cathecism is heretical. I don't cop out and just make that statement I bring out a few points and discuss them using scripture and sound reason. Why can't you do the same with where you think the fundamentalists have strayed from the truth of God's Word? Or are you just bluffing?

    If you do, then please back it up with scripture with explanation. Thus far you have not really done that to defend the teachings of the RCC. The scriptures you have used we (myself, wbmoore, Prophet, believer, mathetes, brotheraaron, seedplanter, Quecat, swordbearer, and others), have shown you that you have not interpreted scripture properly or have made it say what it does not say.

  • Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    msnchris70,

    You are correct in that nothing in Scripture explicitly says infants go to heaven. But the evidence presented from Scripture in the two links I provided shows this is a reasonable understanding of Scripture in this matter.

    Certainly, I think it more likely that infants are given special treatment by God to get into heaven upon death than thinking that infant baptism will actually bring them into heaven upon death, since we know the scriptures that speaks about baptism speak to believers - regardless of your understanding of water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit. And infants are not believers in Christ, as they have not heard and understood the Gospel.

    Additionally, it is not infant baptism that sanctifies children, it is the parent's sanctification that sanctifies the children and unbelieving spouse.
    1 Corinthians 7:14
    14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

    As for water baptism, I still hold the evidence shows that this is an expression of the faith that saves us, as is calling on the name of the Lord and confessing Jesus as Lord.

    There are too many examples where we are told to believe to be saved that do not mention the need for water baptism ((Luke 7:50; John 3:16-18; Acts 10:39-48; Acts 16:31; Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:13), that it is by grace, not a work.

    Example of being baptized with water, and not having received the Holy Spirit: Acts 8:14-17.

    Example of being baptized with the Holy Spirit ("Holy Spirit poured out"), and not having received water baptism: Acts 10:39-48; Acts 11:15-18 in describing the previous.

    Yes, there are instances where we are told to call on the name of the Lord (Romans 10:9-15), or confess the name of Jesus (Acts 2:21), or be baptized (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16). But there are too many instances where it only mentioned we are saved by faith. The only thing all the different 'formulas' and examples have in common is faith. It is the faith that saves us, and the actions that give evidence to the faith being real.

    Water baptism is an expression of faith, just as confessing Christ, or calling on the name of the Lord. These things show we have faith, and show obedience. It is the Christ who saves us because of the faith we have in Him and His saving work, which we show by our actions. If we do not do the action, then we must question if we have faith.

  • Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Believer,

    It is too vast to put in this limited area where fundamentalists stray from the Scriptures.

    Here is my email if you want to take each point by itself. msnchris70@hotmail.com

    Catholicism and Baptists are polar opposites in so many ways, and yet still hold to the fundamental Truths that connect them as Christians. The farther you are from the source, the less something will look like the original.

  • Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Wbmoore,

    You guess or you think this is the case about infants. There is nothing in the Bible that explicitly would lead you to that conclusion.

    Let's call a spade a spade and call it Hope in Christ Mercy for the infants if they are not baptized.

    I hope that all infants are saved, but I can't and won't say it for certain because there is too much of scripture that points the other way, but not specifically.

    If I were you, I would get all my babies baptized just after birth so that they can become members of Christ church, be washed clean of original sin, and have the Holy Spirit infused into their soul.

  • Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I agree with Star. I think God treats children before the age of accountability differently than He treats adults. Belief in Christ is required for those who have died spiritually. But even Paul said in Romans 7:9 that he did not die spiritually until the law came (when he figured out right from wrong).

    http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/baptism-water-or-spirit-required-or-not-is-it-for-infants/
    http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/more-on-water-baptism-and-whether-it-is-for-childreninfants/

  • Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    chris, could you please cite some teachings of the Bible that "fundamentalists" reject?

  • Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Star2,

    More dillusion. Lutherans, Calvinists, Reformed, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists would highly disagree with you on your interpretation of Scripture.

    Scripture and History refute your position. Reason, and reading the WHOLE bible and not just parts refutes your position too.

    You have basically made up a "NEW" theology of God to make your hope that children are saved. Your "New" revelation is not in the bible and you call Catholics "Extra-biblical".

    Show me anywhere in scipture where God says that Children before the age of reason are saved without being born again. Haven't ALL FALLEN SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD?
    So, I guess you don't have to have faith to be saved then?

  • Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    msnchris70

    John 3:6 - "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

    The first birth, a flesh birth, is when your mother gave birth to you (by water). The second birth, spiritual birth, comes when you, from your heart and by an act of your free will, receive Jesus as Savior and Lord through prayer after God convicts your heart through the Holy Ghost that you are a sinner, in need of a Savior, and that Savior is Jesus Christ.

    Life begats life. Life comes from life.


    Like kind begats like kind. People give birth to people. Dogs give birth to dogs, and etc.

    Human flesh begats human flesh. It takes a human male to fertilize a woman's egg. The male sperm has life. A female egg has no life. Medical science has discovered that the blood created in the egg after fertilization is caused by the sperm. A woman's egg hs no life until it is fertilized.

    Spirit begats spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can give life to a spirit that is dead because of sin.

    God the Father is the one who has life. The lost sinner is the one who is dead (spiritually). In the spiritual birth it is God the Father who gives life to your dead spirit.

    Baptism will not save you. You must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ first. Your belief comes through the Holy Ghost convicting your heart that you are a sinner in need of a savior and that Savior is Jesus christ. Baptism is an act of obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ and completes the salvation experience. Getting wet will not wash away anything. God through the Holy Ghost is the one who washes away your sins and He does it through your belief and your act of obedience to His command to be baptized.


    "your position is that children do not have to be "Born again" even though scripture says that we must ALL be born again"

    When Scripture talks about being born-again it is referring to those who have reached the age of accountability and beyond.

    For those children who have not yet reached the age of accountability, infants for example, do you as a parent whip them, scold them, or in some kind of way punish them because they did something wrong? No, you don't. You don't hold them accountable when they do wrong because you know that they don't know what is right and wrong and are not capable of choosing there behavior based on that. You view them as innocent.

    You view there behavior differently when they are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. You hold them accountable for what they do and you punish them when they do wrong.

    And so does God. God views children who do not know the difference between right and wrong differently than children who do. Those children who do not know the difference between right and wrong God views as innocent. Those who do know the difference right and wrong He hold accountable for their choices and he views them as sinners.

  • Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Star2,

    Public revelation of God finished with the Apostle John. There is no further public revelation.

    Private revelation must be supported 100% by scripture and cannot be a teaching that even implicitly stands against scripture. While I can hope that children and infants before the age of reason are saved, I put my trust in what the Church has always practiced and what the Holy Scriptures specifically say. I don't make things up.

    We must be born again of water and spirit to receive to go to heaven and since an infant cannot receive either,tthen your position is that children do not have to be "Born again" even though scripture says that we must ALL be born again.

    Unlike fundamentalists who use the bible like an ala carte system where they accept somethings litterly and others they reject. Catholics take the majority of scripture litterly unless there is some sort of allusion to the contrary somewhere else in scripture.

    You must be born again of water and spirit to go to Heaven. Your revelation is not supported by scripture.

  • Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Star2,

    I'm not sure if you know this but EvanCal is out for while due to health reasons. We should all pray he returns soon.

    Also, God did not speak this to you. It must have been another type of Spirit since not only is infant baptism biblical and historical, but that almost all of Christianity practices this method of becoming a disciple of Christ.

    You are simply wrong, but I'm not surprised coming from a Christian Tradition that is less than 100 years old. The newest sects always think they have the corner on "New" Revelations.

    Your interpretation is false because of so many other areas of scripture that say the opposite. No where in Scripture does it say specifically that children or infants don't need a savior, and because of original sin all are stained.

    Talk about extra-biblical teachings! God told you? So, I guess if you can't refute it using scripture you'll just speak to God. You are hilarious.

  • Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:23 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    EvanCal - I prayed about where infants go when they die and why. God said that they all go to heaven because they are innocent.

    Infants do not need to be baptized to be guarenteed Heaven should they die before the age of accountability because they are innocent. All infants who die, whether they are born to pagan or Christians parents, will go to Heaven.

    A person doesn't become a disciple of Christ until after he/she has received the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

    However, God wants the parent(s) to train/teach a child about God, His Word, and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ (Deu 11:19). The parent(s) should do that at home and also take the child to Church where he/she can continue to learn more about Jesus. The parents should be praying for their child that he/she come to know or receive Jesus as Savior and Lord when God decides its time. (continued)

  • Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:13 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    EvanCal (continued)

    Infantile baptism is not scriptural. It violates all the teachings in God's Word.

    God's Word says that a person does not become a child of God because he was born into a Christian family (by blood), he decided on his own to be saved without God convicting his heart of his need for salvation (will of the flesh), or his parent(s) decided for him when he was an infant (will of man). A person becomes a child of God by being born-again by the Spirit of God when God decides (of God). (John 1:12-13). When God decides it is time for you to make a decision for Jesus He will move on you by drawing you to Jesus, He will convict your heart of your need for a Savior, that Savior is Jesus Christ and He will grant you grace to receive Jesus as Savior and Lord.

    One cannot use the passages about whole households being baptized after one member was saved. A closer examiniation of the Phillippian jailor will reveal that Paul and Silas preached the gospel to ALL members of his household (Acts 16:32), ALL believed (Acts 16:34), and ALL were then baptized (Acts 16:33).

    Other examples of households being baptized have less information given about what happened. All we know about Lydia is that she believed and she and her houshold was baptized (Acts 16:14-15). However, we can safetly assume that her entire household heard the gospel, believed and then they all were baptized because of the principle that once a person believes he/she is to be baptized in order to be saved (Mark 16:16), and that no one can have salvation imparted to them, whether they believe or not, by the faith of someone else (John 1:12-13).

    Infantile baptism may have been a practice by the early Church but that does not make it scriptural. There was heresy in the early Church (1 Cor 11:19, Gal 5:20, 2 Peter 2:1) even when the Apostles were still alive. Paul also told the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20:17) that after he left that there would be people within the Church that would speak perverse (corrupted) things and draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:30). Infantile baptism is one of those heresies.

    One cannot trust everything that the early Church Fathers have said or written. Whatever they have written or taught must be examined in light of the scripture. If the scripture doesn't teach what they say or taught then it is heretical. It would be wise to be like the Bereans and search the scriptures to see if what is taught is scriptural. Wrong doctrine (heretical doctrine/teaching) can cause one to lose out on eternal life (1 Tim 4:16). Also, it would be wise to do the same with every teaching.

  • Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    msnchris70 - Prophet went on vaction with his family for a week.

  • Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    God would certainly say to you about your work with the CARE TEAMS, "Well done Good and faithful servant."

    Way to step up to the plate my brother in Christ!

  • Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    All flagged comments have been restored. Thank you CP.

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wenatchee...LOL. I never thought I'd ever hear of that place again. I've been there.
    That's cool that your Church did that. My wife and I are leaders of a ministry at our Church called the CARE team. Our goal is to get 100% of our church involved in caring for each other, and our community. Last Christmas we organized a special Christmas gift for those truckers that were stuck at the truck stop down the highway from us on Christmas. We got our church together and the donated all sorts of stuff from healthy snack foods to toiletries that truckers can use. We had a huge turnout! I think we ended up with around 130 bags of each (food and toiletries) to hand out on Christmas Eve, and then we had a special Christmas service at the truck stop for them. It was great!
    That's our church's passion...works of service. Seving our community in love and compassion.

    Yes, thank God for truckers. I drive truck locally now, but I remember what it was like driving on the road for weeks or months at a time, being away from my family and church. It's a thankless job.

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    msnchris70 ,

    As for the assumption of Mary being considered heresy, Transitus Mariae was considered to be the origin of the idea of Mary being carried to heaven. Pope Gelasius (in 494-496) issued a decree "Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis," in which "Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae" was declared heresy. Then in 1950, this doctrine was codified by Pope Pius XII.

    http://www.christiantruth.com/assumption.html
    http://www.christiantruth.com/gelasiusdecretum.html
    http://www.christiantruth.com/pseudomelito.html
    http://www.answers.com/topic/assumption-of-mary-1

    It seems to me that if popes are infallible, they would not be heretical. But I'm not Catholic for a reason. I'm sure if I could justify certain dogmas the RCC teaches, I would be. But I can't, so I'm not.

    http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Infallibility.html
    http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_infallibility_act_of_the_pope

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html
    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm
    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

    Oh, by the way, the Catholic Catechism is online at the vatican.
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    msnchris70,

    Hi. I just want to tell you that let you know that I am not anti-catholic, I just think they have some wrong doctrines. I know some would hate me for saying either part of that statement.

    As for your understanding of the Bereans, I agree with everything you said except the part of them being a church. They were not one until after Paul preached and they researched that they agreed with Paul, the apostle. Until they accepted Christ, they were NOT Christians, and so they were not a church, and so not under the authority of a pastor, a bishop, an apostle. Once they accepted Christ, they would have formed a church at Paul's leading (I assume, as I am aware of no scripture supporting this action directly in relation to the Bereans).

    Yes, some of the info I referred to came from sites that have concerns about the Roman Catholic Church. But not all of it.

    Pope Zosimus did not know enough to condemn Pelagius, who came up with Pelagianism, and Caelistus, who was its chief proponent. Zosimus defended Pelagius and Caelistus to the African bishops. That sounds official, and we're not speaking of just two guys, but of the doctrine denying original sin and the other implications of Pelagianism. The pope undid something a previous pope had done. Then when it was proven he had been in error (deceived), he backtracked and said he had done nothing definitive. You can choose to ignore the grave issue as 'not being official' if you want. I am not putting spin on it, I'm simply reporting what is. I see it as what it was: a pope condemning a doctrine and the people putting it forth, the next pope being deceived and defending them to other bishops; then being shown he was wrong and the pope backtracking and then eventually condemning them as heretics.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06406a.htm
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07470a.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Zosimus
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_I

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    That is so great, Prophet! Yes the Apples are delicious, indeed.

    One of our parishes attended to many truckers who came through Chelan and Wenatchee. They would give them miniature New Testaments to read, some warm blankets for their rigs, and pictures of Jesus to put on their dashboard with a prayer on the back to keep them safe. These volunteers would bring fellowship to people who experience severe bouts of loneliness on the road. Good food, Good fellowship and the Good Word was the fix.

    God bless all truckers who keep this country moving!

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It's gorgeous up there too, especially in the winter.

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I've been up there a couple times when I was an OTR trucker. Picking up apples to take to Oklahoma...LOL. Each time I'd pick up a load, they'd give me a free case of fresh Washington apples. Wow, were they good!

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Semi-retired.

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I love Chelan!

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    msnchris,
    You ever been up to the Chelan mountains in Washington?

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I say semi-retired, but my wife thinks that I do more now than when I worked full time.

    How about you?

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris70, are you retired?

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 2:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Star2,

    If your book gets published, I would love to read it!
    I live between Seattle and the Mountains.

    I have taught some adjuct courses, but I was never tenured. Most of my time in university was as a student.
    My business now is 100% evangelization.

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 2:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So Chris70 do you live in or near Seatle Washington? I think you said one time that you taught in a university. What school do you teach in and what do you teach?

    The picture of mountains, is that a painting you have in your office?

    If I wrote a book on how to be ready for the coming of the Lord would you read it? I would give you the book free. I would give it free to anyone I know that posts on CP. I might just give it away to anyone who would be interested.

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wbmoore,

    I'm tired of doing all your research for you.

    Yes, Honorius was a heretic. He did hold a position that wasn't orthodox and he didn't do his job, but he did not and I repeat DID NOT teach it officially from the seat of Peter.

    Also, in the sixth general council Pope Hormisdas was not called a heretic about the virgin Mary and her assumption.

    You provide me your information and where you found it. The Assumption of Mary has always been believed. There is no official statement by any Pope saying contrary. Did people hold different opinions? Yes.

    You have failed to reveal an "Official" statement from the Chair of Peter where He made a mistake and it was condemned later!

    VI. THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
    Years: 680-681
    Summary: The Third General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.
    Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/04310a.htm

    Wrong again!

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    wbmoore,

    Are you just getting your research from anti-catholic sites? C'mon you can do better than this!

    Pope Honorius' main sin of heresy was gross negligence and a lax leadership at a time when his letters and guidance were in a position to quash the heresy at its roots.

    This was a personal letter, which did not endorce any view as correct, but rather was just an attempt to keep things even keel in the Church. He basically didn't want to deal with it and pass it off to another Pope.

    Also, it is Tradition and a rule that our Popes must speak or write "Ex-Cathedra" or at a minimum the Pope must say he speaks with Peter's voice or from Peter's chair or that he is speaking officially. He was not and even the most anti-Catholic Protestant historians like JND Kelly grant that Pope Honorius did not write this letter officially. A Pope can be a heretic and he can say stupid stuff and he can even be a total sinner much like Judas who was handpicked by Jesus. However, the Pope must speak officially to have it be "BINDING". This was not the case.

    He was a lame Pope, who basically didn't want to ruffle any feathers. He was a heretic because of his lack of duty and I'm glad he was anethmatized!

    Nice try wbmoore, but still you haven't proven any Pope to make a doctrinal mistake in faith and morals speaking officially from the seat of Peter.

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wbmoore,

    You are so funny and such a spinmeister. I asked you to find anything concerning faith and morals and you didn't.
    You mention Pope Innocent 1 rightfully condeming Pelagius
    and Caelistus for denying the doctrine of Original Sin.

    Ok, so we have two guys denying the Doctrine of Original Sin and the Pope disciplines them for this unorthodox position by condeming them. Then, Pope Zosimus was elected and these two crafty men; Pelagius and Caelistus try to trick the Pope and say that they really accept Original Sin. Pope Zosimus accepts their restatement of faith and feels Innocent I was a little too harsh in disciplining them and too quick to cast disciplinary judgement. Later, it is found out that these two heretics tricked the Pope.

    This is not an example of contradicting faith and morals.
    Did Pope Zosimus disagree or contradict Pope Innocent on Original sin? This is our faith. No, he did not. He only contradicted his disciplinary judgement that was too quick and harsh, which later Pope Innocent was found out to be correct and Pope Zosimus was tricked.

    This was not a contradiction of doctrine. This is only an example of discipline that I never claimed was infallible.

    Nice try!

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Prophet,
    Authoritative Church

    Mat 28:18-20- Jesus delegates power to the Apostles
    Jn 20:23-Power given to forgive sin to the Apostles
    1 Cor 11:23-24-Power given to the Apostles to offer sacrifice(Eucharist).
    Lk 10:16 - Power to speak with Christ's voice
    Mt. 18:18 - Power to legislate
    Mt. 18:17 - Power to discipline

    Jn 15:16 - Jesus chose special men to be His Apostles
    Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17 - Peter appointed to be chief shepherd.
    Eph 4:11 - Church leaders are hierarchical
    1Tim 3:1, 8, 5:17 - Identifies role of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
    Tit 1:5 - Commisioned for Bishops to ordain priests
    Jn 14:16, 26 - Holy Spirit with you always, teach and remind of everthing only to the Apostles.
    Jn 16:13 - Spirit of Truth will guide the Apostles into all Truth. Promised to the Apostles and their successors.

    I've pointed out many scriptures that point to a special group of men who are in charge for Christ. We are all members of the royal priesthood, but some are called for special gifts by the Holy Spirit.

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    wbmoore,

    The Bereans were a Christian community, and they were all in agreement. They were subject to the authority of the Apostles, since the Apostles HAD CHRIST AUTHORITY. Do you now doubt Christ ability to give authority to the Aposltes. Remember, Paul said "ARE ALL APOSTLES"? No, only specially handpicked people were Apostles. The Bereans were a wonderful example of people who love God's word and test whatever they learned even if it was from an Apostle to God's Holy Word. These Bereans were a fine example for all of us. They also lived in a community where they all would read the Scriptures, meaning the Old Testament and maybe some letters of the New.

    Also, if they disagreed with anything they would have had to bring it up to Paul or another Apostle or Bishop that Paul placed over them. Back then, they respected the authority of the Apostles and Bishops unlike newer Christian sects today.

    I find the Bereans actions very Catholic. Remember, they were members of the one Church and did not believe differently than other Christians.

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Star2,

    It wasn't a vision, but a guess. The devil wasn't involved, silly. I once met a women who lived in the mountains and sounded a lot like you. I met her years ago and you two would have a lot in common.

    I think any kind of bible study is good, so I think a Lady's bible study is good. Good to hear you are not that extreme.

    Enjoy the weekend.

    Oh, I live in the Pacific Northwest between the mountains and Ocean and Lakes. It is a beautiful place. God has certainly made this an amazing place. The unfortunate thing is that we have some Liberal whackos who actually worship nature up here, but that is a whole other story.

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You go Star!

  • Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    msnchris70:"... you certainly cannot find anyone in scripture putting themselves in Charge of interpretation."

    The Bereans did exactly what you say there is not evidence of. They used scripture to measure what was said. They were in charge of the interpretation of what Paul said. They had no church, no pastor, no bishop. It was just them.

    "no Pope has ever in 2000 years contradicted another Pope on "Officially taught" faith and morals."

    Pope Innocent I condemned Pelagius and Celestius and Pelagianism (which denies original sin); his successor, Pope Zosimus declared him innocent. Then he acknowledged he had been deceived and condemned them again.

    Pope Honorius I was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680). (This means that Honorious made doctrinal statements which are contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.) He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century.

    The Assumption of Mary was rejected as heresy by Pope Gelasius in 495 C.E. Not even one hundred years after that, Pope Hormisdas condemned as heretics any authors that taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Hormisdas was condemned as a heretic himself around a hundred years after that at the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 C.E.). Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950 defined the Assumption of Mary as doctrine. "So before November 1, 1950, any Catholic who believed in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of "infallible" declarations of popes). But after November 1, 1950, any Catholic who failed to believe in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of the "infallible" declaration of Pope Pius XII)."

    I dont know what you see as infallible in a pope, because the contradict each other.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Church
  • Gifts
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Tyndale House Publishers

In 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran, unleashed the Islamic Revolution, and allowed his followers to seize the American Embassy in Tehran and hold 52 hostages for 4