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.
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..
msnchris70 - Sadly, wbmoore and myself have shown you that infantile baptism is not scriptural and you simple reject it.
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.
"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.
"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.
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).
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
chris, could you please cite some teachings of the Bible that "fundamentalists" reject?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
msnchris70 - Prophet went on vaction with his family for a week.
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!
All flagged comments have been restored. Thank you CP.
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.
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
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
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!
It's gorgeous up there too, especially in the winter.
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!
Semi-retired.
I love Chelan!
msnchris,
You ever been up to the Chelan mountains in Washington?
I say semi-retired, but my wife thinks that I do more now than when I worked full time.
How about you?
Chris70, are you retired?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
You go Star!
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.
msnchris,
You said "God gave his authority to specific people and you were not one of them."
Well, as a son of God, I'm sure that I have all the authority I need.
Still waiting on proof.....
Chris70 or anyone
If you want to email me then you can do it through my YahooAnswer page. The link is
http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile;_ylt=AtKGwrgP.5tUaX0YMdd0SIDsy6IX;_ylv=3?show=Y6RXpOcPaa&preview=true
Chris70 :"Yes, there were heresies in the early church and the church that got rid of them were the Catholics. The Catholics threw out people who thought Jesus was only divine or only human but not both. We threw out many others too who said he couldn't have been born of a virgin and that there is no such thing as a Trinity."
That is good that they got rid of that heresy but they have refused to get rid of the other heresies, like but not limited to:
1) Infantile baptism
2) Purgatory
3) Praying to Mary and other dead saints
4) Immaculate Conception of Mary
5) Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Chris70: "Someone like yourself usually gets so extreme that they start going to people's houses and they turn Church into living room bible study where everyone gets to say what they want and no one is there to say if it is true or not. It is usually a very loosely knit group with no tie to any "Recognized"Christian Church."
this may be true about some people but it is not true of me.
One day I would like to have a Ladies Bible Study for the women in my community in my home. If it is God's will, then I will when He says it is time. Thus far it has not been. The desire is there and has been for about 10 yrs or so. I think that that desire is of God but He hasn't brought that to pass yet. There is a time for everyhting but now is not the time. God will let me know when it is time.
No Chris70, I have never been married. I don't have any children. I don't approve of premartial sex and I don't and never have practiced it. No sex means no kids. Right?
I told you before that I had taken a vow of celibacy. All you and EvanCal did was say that I was being emotional and dramatic which you two always say about my testimonies.
I live in Seabrook, Tx which is about 8 miles east of the Johnston Space Center (JSC) which is where I worked for 9 years. The JSC is about 20-25 miles south of Houston, Tx. I am about 6 blocks from Galveston Bay. The land I live in is very very flat. The only raising of the earth is when you go over a freeway overpass.
If you got a vision of where I live then what you saw was not of God but of the devil.
Where do you work and live?
I don't know if I am out of bounds here, but I have a picture of a mountain area. Do you live in the Mountains?
I know this is off the topic, but I just had a thought that you lived in the Mountains. I'm not a prophet, so it could just be my old age.
Star2,
I am also surprised you even have a Pastor then. Someone like yourself usually gets so extreme that they start going to people's houses and they turn Church into living room bible study where everyone gets to say what they want and no one is there to say if it is true or not. It is usually a very loosely knit group with no tie to any "Recognized"Christian Church.
Sheep are prone to scatter and do their own thing and this is why God put men(Shepherds) over his flock. "Feed my sheep, tend my sheep, feed my lambs." to Saint Peter.
You took a vow of celibacy. Sounds pretty Catholic To me.
Were you ever married, did you have kids out of wedlock? Are you divorced?
There are over 750,000 Catholic women in our Church who also take a vow of celibacy to be a virgin bride of Christ and we call them sisters or nuns. They live very holy lives all dedicated to God.
I admire anyone who can live the celibate life as a choice.
Also Star2, you are unwilling to accept anyone else's interpretation unless you already agreed with it.
The Bible speaks against this and constantly speaks of how decisions were made at the first council of Jerusalem and so on. It was a group decision with the Apostles and or Bishops in charge of making the final decision and the head of the Apostles Peter or His successor Bishop must have been present to make it a valid council.
You can't find anyone in the New Testament who starts their own church different from that of the Apostles and lasts and you certainly cannot find anyone in scripture putting themselves in Charge of interpretation.
You don't operate your interpretation in a biblical fashion. Our way of interpreting scripture has lasted 2000 years and the fruit of the Catholic Church speaks for itself.
If God meant for you to interpret scripture on your own without council and without authority over you, then you would think we would see it in the Bible, eh?
Chris70
Re:Your extremist point of view is not only unbiblical, but it may make you a very isolated type person who thinks they know it all. These type of people have very few real friends and rarely if ever have functioning marriages and usually live alone.
Man is not needed for understanding of the Word of God. To say he is is to disagree with Jesus (John 14:26, John 16:13) and the Apostle John (1 John 2:27).
I don't care if I stand alone. I look to God to meet my needs not man. I am not alone for God is with me. If I get lonely, and sometimes I do, then I call a friend and talk with them for awhile. The loneliness is only temporary.
As far as marriage is concerned, that is something I don't have to worry about since I took a vow of celibacy in Oct 1980 to serve God the rest of my life.
Man was needed when God gave us a Man for the ultimate Sacrifice.
Man was needed to write the Scriptures.
Man was needed to decided what books were to be included in the Bible.
Man was needed to baptize you, to pastor to you.
Man was needed to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth.
Man was needed to introduce God to pagans and heathens.
Man was needed to teach their women about the faith.
Man was needed.
Your extremist point of view is not only unbiblical, but it may make you a very isolated type person who thinks they know it all. These type of people have very few real friends and rarely if ever have functioning marriages and usually live alone.
I know I don't know everthing. Even when the Holy Spirit came to me and I spoke in tongues, I still didn't know everthing about God's Word. I read it, study it and pray over it daily. I love reading His holy word because I love getting to know our savior. He is good and faithful in all things.
Humility is a virtue.
Chris70
I am not alone in my understanding of scripture. I have had two Pastors who had doctrine similar to mine. One was more so than the other. I was taught by neither one of them.
msnchris70
If I can't trust God in what He teaches me then why bother.
Star2Zion,
I might suggest you use a little caution. You can't lump all the earliest Christians together and say they are all wrong. Ignatius was the disciple of John and never got anything wrong for example.
It is important to note that the majority of the "Early Church Fathers" did not historically fall into heresy but some in the minority did. I only reference early church fathers who interpreted scripture in an orthodox fashion.
I too interpret Scripture for myself and I have the right to challenge certain scripture passages with my local church if I so choose.
Because I was an anti-Catholic Reformed minister, they didn't have to sell me on Catholicism. Catholicism was proved to me by 20 years of deep study to be the most biblically correct and reasonable Christian Church. Moreover, the historical witness proves their interpretation over and above any current interpretation.
Your interpretation lacks the authority given by God. God gave his authority to specific people and you were not one of them. Even if the bereans had a problem with a doctrine they would have to discuss it with their Bishop. You don't have a bishop and you are so sold on your own interpretation that there is no room for council. I can see why you see things differently because of your lack of historicity and biblical orthodoxy. It makes sense.
The Bereans are a fine example of testing what was said with Scripture and I have no problem with testing anything against scripture. I'm afraid you may never get beyond your bias to be like the Bereans. You see, the Bereans never were alone. They were a community of Christians and they decided things in a communal format, not on their own. This is much more Catholic, than Baptist or Pentecostal.
Chris70
God is more than able to teach me what He wants me to know. Man is not needed.
And I'm still waiting for this proof from msnchris.
chris,
You said "Right now the Pope is working with many Anglicans to find a way that they can come home to the Catholic Church."
In other words...submit to the teachings of the RCC? I am home. I'm right where God wants me, whether the Pope likes that or not. I am a son of God and have a shepherd already.
But I would prefer to not involve myself in a denomination that teaches so much anti-scriptural doctrines. I'd rather keep myself clean.
And what new pronouncements? The moral of the day? The service project for the month?
If the Pope is truly infallible, one false statement every hundred years is a big deal. Then he is not truly infallible.
Infallible: 1 : incapable of error : unerring <an infallible memory>
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain <an infallible remedy>
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals
(Wbster Dictionary)
The Pope is infallible, meaning incapable (i.e. it is impossible) of saying anything incorrectly. Which you just admitted that the Pope is indeed fallible.
msnchris70
The teachings/writings of the early Church fathers are not needed. If what they taught was of God then their teachings would be reflected in the Word of God.
If their teachings and practices are contrary to the Word of God then I will reject it. I don't care what relationship they claimed to have had with the Apostles. The Word of God establishes what truth is not man.
msnchris70
I do not have to blindly accept what someone says about Scriptures. The Bereans didn't and they were considered more nobel than the Thessalonicas who did not question what they were taught.
Acts 17:10-11
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Also, as I have said before Jesus said two of the functions of the Holy Ghost is to teach you all things (John 14:26), and to guide you into all truth (John 16:13). Also, the Apostle John told the Christians he wrote his first letter to (1John) that they didn't need anyone to teach them but as the anointed (Holy Ghost) has taught them that they were to abide in it (1 John 2:27).
I take God at His Word and I look to God to teach me not man.
John 14:26 - "But the Comforter, which is the HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
John 16:13 - "Howbeit when he, the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, is come, he WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
1 John 2:27 - "But the anointing (Holy Ghost) which ye have received of him abideth in you, and YE NEED NOT THAT ANY MAN TEACH YOU: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
Man will not replace God in my life!
Prophet,
The Pope has not made any infallible statements in a very long time. Maybe one infallible statement everyone 100 years or so.
He is very necessary. Although he is making any new pronouncements he is still the visible head of the Catholic Church. This responsibility as Chief Shepherd of Christ' Church has many roles.
Right now the Pope is working with many Anglicans to find a way that they can come home to the Catholic Church. He is also working with the Reformed Churches in ecclesiology and the Pope is working with the Orthodox to reestablish unity that was lost 1000 years ago.
The Pope plays an instrumental role not only in the religious circles but in the World. The Pope stance against Abortion, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell, gay marriage and many more areas of morality does not go unnoticed.
When he speaks on this issue, it carries a lot of weight. Our past Pope, Pope John Paul II, was a key figure in helping to bring down communism. So, he does play a very key role in the world and is the pastor of 1.2 Billion people which is 1/6th of the world's population.
Thanks.
Prophet,
I am happy to provide proof. Let's take this offline so we can really exchange if you are up for it.
Our doctrines are all in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is almost 1000 pages, so I am happy to discuss any. Protestantism has only two doctrines and is a one page document, and I am happy to discuss those too.
Use my handle @hotmail.com.
God bless you.
How can Protestants " have left historical Christianity and created something new"? I've studied the Bible for 20 years. Most of what our church does is Biblical (there always things that are questionable from time to time).
And since you are able to give proof of the RCC doctrines, please do so. Quit talking about what you can prove, I don't care what you say you can prove. Just give the evidence and let us weigh it.
Chris,
You said "They put all their Trust in the Bible, which is a Product of Catholic Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit."
The scriptures were around long before the Catholic church was.
The Catholic church is no more universal than any other. I've known many Catholics and visited Catholic churches. There was no difference between them and Protestants except the aforementioned doctrinal issues.
So, if the "Pope has ever in 2000 years contradicted another Pope on "Officially taught" faith and morals.", that means that he is merely agreeing with pre-established issues, and is not a judge of the scriptures. Well, that means that a lot of Catholics are infallible too, because they do the same thing. They agree with the "officially taught faith and morals. So, what makes the Pope so special? If there are already officially taught faith and morals, there is no need for a Pope. The people just need to follow the officially taught faith and morals already established.
The Pope is unnecessary at this point.
chris, my concern is not that they have but they can and if they do the expectation is that the Catholic community would be expected to endorse his declaration because he has spoken excathedra, if that is the correct word.
Believer,
Please feel free to show me how any Pope that created a doctrine that is contrary to the Bible.
The Pope is the servant to the Word of God and does not supercede. We can either discuss it here or offline.
my handle @hotmail.com
Star2 and Zion,
My faith is all about Jesus.
Yes, there were heresies in the early church and the church that got rid of them were the Catholics. The Catholics threw out people who thought Jesus was only divine or only human but not both. We threw out many others too who said he couldn't have been born of a virgin and that there is no such thing as a Trinity.
Again, my faith is in Christ. Christ gave specific authority to specific people. I accept these individuals and you reject them.
You have all the education you need is a pretty huge statement. The Bible is not unlike your Math books. Most people can't pick up Calc or Geometry or Trig and just figure it out. Much like the Bible too. The CHurch provides a safety line, so that you do not interpret outside of what was handed on by the Apostles.
Again, Jesus left men in authority over the flock. You reject Jesus by rejecting their authority since it came from God.
Your religion is more about you, than it is about anything else. Did you baptize yourself? No. Can you marry yourself? Did you write the Bible? No. It takes others to help you to come to Christ is my point and a man baptized you and a man will officiate your wedding and a man willl officiate your funeral and a man will officiate your service on Sunday. You fail to recognize the role of authority even in your own Church.
chris, I only reject those things that I believe contradicts, violates, or supercedes the Word of God. I reject the issue of infallibility because it teaches that if what the Pope says contradict or violates the Word of God it's okay because whatever he says supercedes the written Word of God.
msnchris70
If your faith isn't all about Jesus then your faith is corrupt.
Jesus is the one who paid the price for your sins so you could be forgiven and have eternal life not man. We owe all to Him for without Him you have no forgiveness of sin and eternal life. He alone is worthy of our worship, our obedience, our adoration, our praise, or thanksgiving. Man is not. To give that to a human, past or present, is to have that human a god in your life and that is idoltary.
Catholism is all about man. Man saves you, man forgives you, man thinks for you (interprets scripture for you), man (dead saints) pray for you, man decides whether you make it to heaven or not, etc.
If man's writings supercedes the Word of God in your life as authority then those writings are an idol in your life.
Many of the teachings and practices of the early church fathers go against the Word of God, they are heretical. Reject them! The Apostle Paul said that if any man, angle, or even him preaches a different gospel than what he taught then let them be accursed. Let the heretics be accursed and Paul even included himself in that. If any person introduces false teachings whether they were taught by the Apostles or not then reject what they wrote. Let them be accursed if they preach a different gospel than what is taught in the Word of God.
Chris70 says, "It all comes down to Authority. Newer Christian sects think "I can interpret the Bible for myself without anyone else" and/or without any education."
As the 1981 New Year approached I made 5 prayer request of which 4 were in the spiritual area. They were:
1) I wanted to be a woman of prayer
2) I wanted to grow in the knowldge and wisdom of God and his Word
3) I wanted to know what my spirtual gift was and to use it
4) I wanted to be a soul winner
The Church I was attending, a SBC church, was going to do a year long study on these very topics. I signed up for it but God didn't have me attend. Instead God taught me all these thing by sending me out into the world to live for Him. It is what my singles Minister called, "On the job training". I studied the Word of God and I served God in word and deed as He led me. That is the only education I need or in my opinion any Christian needs.
God is the Authority. The Rabbis of Jesus' day wanted to be the God of the people's lives. Jesus warned the people and us too to not make man your authority. When you do, authority (man) will replace the Authority (God) in your life. Based on what you have shared Chris that is what has happened to you.
Protestantism is all about me and Jesus. It is highly individualistic, while Catholicism is both communal and individual.
Going by the Bible alone has always been a problematic. The first Christians used the Bible as the basis for all Christian understanding. Christian doctrine slowly progressed over time as the Holy Spirit guided His Church. The beliefs were always the same but in infant style format. As the church gained maturity the teaching authority of the Church(the bishops in communion with the bishop of rome)set more specifically our Christian doctrines like the incarnation of Christ and the Trinity.
The Protestant doctrine of going by Scripture alone was never practiced. For certain, the Bible because it is the inerrant Word of God was used to reproof and to build up the faith of the members which it did. But the Bible needed a guardian who would protect Christianity from heretical interpretation and that authority came from the Bishops who were the Apostles successors in communion with The Prime Minister of Bishops, which was and is the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome always had a special primacy based on scripture and tradition.
Mainline Protestant Churches at least have a Liturgy and some even still keep to the scriptural hiearchy explicitly shown in Scripture, but new Protestant denominations of the last 200-300 years have rejected almost everthing of historical Christianity. While historical Christianity can always back up their beliefs using scripture, the newer Christian sects just outright reject it without any due dilligence because they are historically handicapped.
It all comes down to Authority. Newer Christian sects think "I can interpret the Bible for myself without anyone else" and/or without any education. Older Protestant denominations base their interpretations on Scripture and some historical evidence and Catholics base our interpretation of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit using the Bible as our pre-eminant focal point and basis and Sacred tradition to see how those scriptures were lived out by the earliest people who knew Christ or at least the Apostles and their successor bishops. We Catholics also look to the teaching authority granted by Christ to His church. "He who hears you, hears me and he who rejects you rejects me". You rejected the teaching authority of the Church, so in some sense you rejected Christ at some level.
Feel free to ask me any question at my handle @hotmail.com
msnchris70 - There was heresy in the early church even when the Apostles were still alive. Paul warned the elders at Ephesus that after he left that there would be people inside the Chruch that would pervert (corrupt, misinterpret) the Word of God (introduce heresey) and some within the Church would become their disiples.
One thing I have noticed in life and that is that people will believe a lie before they will believe the truth. People will fall for a heretical teaching before they will believe the truth.
We must be like the Bereans and not accept without question everything we are taught. We should search the scripture to see if what someone says, including spiritual leaders form the distant past and down through the ages to modern time, is what the Word of God teaches. If it doesn't then reject it.
The Word of God establishes what truth is. The Word of God is what God will use to judge you on judgment day. He isn't going to judge you based on what some early church father said, or a Pope, or someone's Pastor, or what mom and dad says, He is going to judge you on what He says.
I think it is wise to get with God and find out from Him directly what He means by what he says in His Word and obey it because what you believe can affect where you spend your eternity. If you are wrong, you could end up perishing.
God's Word is all we need for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). Why make the writings of fallible man on equal par with Holy Script? It is dangerous to do so and even suicidal.
When you read anyone's writings don't check your brain in at the door. Search the scripture to see if it is what God's Word teaches.
Also, we Catholic have made huge claims like; we are the True Church and our Pope is infallible. Protestants do not claim to be the True Church and yet they claim to live the true faith. They put all their Trust in the Bible, which is a Product of Catholic Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit. We Catholics put all our Trust in Christ, which has been revealed through both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition(not tradition of men)as the early Christians did. We also accept the teaching authority Christ gave to His Apostles who gave that authority to their successors the Bishops. Protestants have no biblical or teaching authority without Apostolic succession.
By scripture alone and by faith alone are two protestant doctrines that cannot be found anywhere in scripture. The word "Alone" is where you run into trouble. Moreover, Protestant doctrines are not even about the above two mentioned. Protestant doctrine is more about God guiding me in interpretation and that's it.
Prophet and Believer,
The Infallibility is specific to an official statement made by the Pope. He can make mistakes and disagree with other Popes of the past on practices and disciplines or economic situations, but no Pope has ever in 2000 years contradicted another Pope on "Officially taught" faith and morals.
If the Pope or the Catholic Church teaches extra biblical items then you say you reject it. This has more to do with interpretation, than anything else. You see, I can use scripture to show where these beliefs come from. I can also show using scripture how no doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church violates or supercedes the written Word of God. The difference is you won't accept our interpretation of it and I do. The other difference is that I can show you historically as well how the early Christians lived what the scriptures taught, and you cannot and this is why not only the Catholic Church but all the oldest Churches of the first 1500 years all have Bishops, Priests and Deacons. We all celebrate 7 sacraments and we all believe that the Eucharist is the TRUE presence of Christ. You do not.
Protestants have left historical Christianity and created something new. Historical Christianity was never bound by using the Bible alone for their understanding of the Christian faith. It was always and everywhere understood that the Bible is useful for reproof and building up the members of the Church, but they also used the oral Tradition handed down by the Apostles which is not in the Bible and does not contradict the Bible either. The oral tradition has mostly to with the style of Worship and how they understood what was written in the Scriptures. Moreover, the Apostles and then the Bishops had authority over the flock.
Today, there is no authority within Protestantism. There is no one who can say, "This is the Truth". You can all look to the Word, but you all disagree with what it says.
Another proof that the Pope is not infallible, is that he may not agree with previous Popes. Not all Popes agree, and to say that each Pope is infallible would mean that God is double minded.
chris, I guess for me the issue is are these practices and views extra-biblical or do they contradict, violate, or supersede the Word of God. If they do any of the latter then I must reject them. For instance I really enjoy the observance of the Stations of the Cross. Although many of them are straight from the Word, some are extra-biblical such as Veronica wiping the face of Christ. I'm not saying it didn't happen but it is not recorded in the Bible, but at the same time it does not contradict, violate, or supersede the Word of God. However, I can not agree with the Pope being infallible when he sits on the throne of Peter because if he says something that contradicts or violates God's Word it would supercede the Word of God and there is no biblical support for the teaching of the infallibility of the Pope on the throne of Peter. That is the problem those of us who believe the Word of God is in its' original autographs is the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God have with some of the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church.
Chris,
That's the problem, you can't find scripture to support any of those claims.
EvanCal,
You and your wife are in my prayers.
Peace my brother,
Chris
Zion,
Praise be Jesus Christ! I understand you do not like some of our doctrines as much as I don't like some of the beliefs of baptists and pentecostals. Indeed.
I will try to be more fair handed with you. It is hard to deall with you when I don't even think you think I am a Christian when I accord you that right and name because of what we share in common out does anything we have in disagreement.
Yes, I love Mary and honor her but I won't worship her, but I don't honor her anymore than I've honored my own parents. Yes, I believe the Sacraments convey Grace and Yes, I believe the Pope is infallible in faith and morals when he sits officially in the Seat of Peter, etc, etc. You would disagree with all these positions and we can both find scripture to support our views and we will probably think each other are lunatics for some of the scriptures we use in our defense.
I can tell you that one thing is for certain though is that i put all my trust in Jesus Christ as my savior. I am only saved through Him and I accept His sacrificial death on the cross for my sins. I believe in the Trinity in the incarnation of Christ and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I believe we are saved by Grace through faith. I believe we cannot earn our salvation, and because of Grace good works are built within us because of the Holy Spirit that we must be faithful and do what we are supposed to do not because of merit but because of love of our Lord.
Thank you for being the first to offer a olive branch. May you be blest because of your forgiveness and love.
Your bro in Christ,
Chris
msnchris70 - Sometimes, not often, I have flagged you too but not always for the same reason.
I know it is difficult to read people's opinion that goes against what you believe and it is especially difficult if you view the opinion as a personal attack.
Sometimes though you reap what you sow. If you cut someone down then you eventually will be cut down. If you bad mouth a denomination or a person then your denomination or you will be bad mouthed. If you put down a denomination's leader then yours will be put down. You have done all these things to the Protestants and especially the Baptists and pentecostals. The protestants have done all these to the Catholics. We do it to each other. I will never agree with the doctrines and practices of the Catholic church. I'll try to be more careful though in how I present my views.
We are going to have our differences. People from both sides of an issue are going to defend their beliefs. We all need to be a little more tactful, though, in how we present our differences and opinions.
I beleive it is important to defend our beliefs but it is also important to allow God to judge what is truth and what is error and correct each of us accordingly.
EvanCal - I hope all goes well for you. I feel for your wife.
I am working on my responses to you in the areas of baptism, heaven for infants that die, grace, discipleship, heresy. This will probably take a few days. I hope you will check back later when you are feeling better or after your test are complete. Of course you know that star is really my name but until the flagger stops I decided to use zion. I like star better and hope I can go back to it soon.
Believer,
I'm sorry my friend, but I thought I answered the question.
2Sam is a stretch to prove that all children go to heaven. We all need salvation and Jesus came for all. The Kingdom of God is for everyone and your children. Peter didn't specify age in the Greek when he said "Children", so we do not know if he meant infants too.
We do see in Scripture where whole households were baptized. Explicit baptism of infants is not present in scripture, but an implicity representation is and then if we connect the dots with historical writings we see that all infants were baptized without exception. The Apostles obviously taught them this because it was proacticed throughout all the churches, or they would not have done it. The only problem about baptism that came up was whether you baptize infants at birth or on the eighth day, which is the same day as circumcision. Again, this adds to the proof of how Paul discussed how baptism is how the new covenant is established much like circumcision was to the Old.
I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear. I am still not on my A game yet with my health issues right now.
Also, I will have to be off the board for a little while until I finish my tests at the hospital. The doctors think I may have had a mild stroke instead of heart problems. If I can ask for prayers from this board I would appreciate it. Also, Please pray for my wife too because she is very worried about me.
Thank you in advance for your prayers. My confidence is in Christ my savior in all things.
Yes, I agree.
Now, I may never like what STAR2 has to say and I have certainly flagged her in the past if she says things about the Pope or the Catholic Church that are offensive, Like calling him the anti-christ and the RCC apostate, but I won't flag her for flag sake. If she or others decided to use scripture to defend their positions, then I think we all benefit even if we disagree. "Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ" -St. Jerome.
Also, I've had my post flagged many times when I was only defending my interpretation of scripture.
Let's all get real here. If we don't let the posts stand then we cannot learn and grow from reading another person's point of view. We may vehemently disagree with them to the point of getting angry, but we must all strive to be more charitable. I know I can do a lot more in that area.
We all are passionate about Jesus Christ, and it stands to be reasonable how we defend our view of Him who is all good and deserving of all our love.
Also, I noticed when I wrote against an atheist on this board and against a pro-homosexual liberal then all of my posts were flagged on all the sections of this board. fyi.
believer - some articles star doesn't posts on but Prophet does. He is flagged on those articles. But when they both post on the same article then they are both flagged. I think it is the infidel who is doing the flagging. Whoever it is, CP knows because the s/w that processes the flag option makes note of what ID did the flagging. They can give the guy the boot if star or prophet complains of the flagging. The problem is the infidel has multiple names. He can no longer make up new names because the system now requires the potential poster to verify his email address. He was using fake email addresses and that is why he could sign on with a new name any time he wanted too. But now he has to use a real email address to create a new ID. However, the system doesn't check for previous fake addresses so he can still get signed on with any old ID that hasn't been barred from the system. Maybe CP will change that.
yeah, its hard to have a conversation with one of them when their posts keep getting flagged.
wb, I continued to see prophet flagged, but I didn't notice star2 getting flagged lately, but if she is too then I might very well be wrong with my suspicions, but the bottomline is I think everybody wishes it would stop.
star2, I know who did that mass flagging on you guys, but I think someone else has a bone to pick with prophet, but if you are still being flagged it may still be just that one person.
believer - The infidel, the one with all the aliases, said he would flag in the future all posts made by Prophet and star2. Their posts are being flagged on multiple articles. who else could it be?
Who do you think it could be?
zion, I don't know why but I have a feeling it may not be who you think it is, believer
zion, understood.
wbmoore - I got your email. I'll pray for your situation. I don't know if I will continue to use this name. If the infidel doesn't stop then I will have no other choice.
zion, I responded thanks.
wbmoore - average christian emailed you back.
wbmoore - If you want my email address then let me know.
I've said it before, it IS true to say that if a household has children, then at one point in time, there was an infant in it. But that does not mean it is always (or even most often) the case. *I* have a household of 5 children, none of which are infants. It is not true to say that a household has an infant.
God treats infants and children differently than adults.
In Numbers 14:28-35, we see the children are not responsible for grumbling, even though they suffer because of the parents - this indicates an age of accountability.
In Nehemiah 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.
In Ezekiel 18:20, each person is responsible for his own sins; this verse indicates each of our souls are alive until we sin.
Paul said in Romans 7:9 that he was alive until the law came, at which time he died.
Even infants recognize God Ps 8:2, Mt 20:15-16.
in Lk 18:15-17, Jesus said the kingdom of God belongs to infants and we have to receive the kingdom like little children.
In regards to infants needing to be baptized, sanctification of a believing parent is what makes the children holy, not baptism, 1 Corinthians 7:14.
Once we reach the age where we can decide for ourselves whether to believe or not, we must make that choice, and then be baptized in obedience.
evancal, you're right we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt where a child who dies before reaching the age of reason spends eternity, the only thing we can do is leave it in the hands of God who is a just and merciful and loving God. And that's why David could say what he did when his infant son died because a just and merciful and loving God would not hold his child accountable for the sins of his father. Plus once again you have not shown any Bible reference that teaches we are to baptize infants and to use the story of the Philippian jailer's family is a far greater stretch than the use of the passage from 2 Samuel to attempt to prove children who die before the age of reason go to heaven.
wbmoore,
I couldn't have said it better myself. LOL.
I've asked that of evancal a number of times and have yet to get an answer.
I thought I'd report what prophet had written (I had it in another window):
cal,
Why wasn't Jesus baptized as a baby? He was dedicated (which is scriptural). Why did He wait until He was older?
Probably to be an example, which many people miss.
Baby's cannot understand the Gospel. You must be saved to be baptized. You must understand that you are a sinner and repent of your sins. You must make a conscious decision to make Him Lord.
I haven't seen a baby yet, that could do that.
I've heard a lot of talk about what the early church did in regards to child baptisms, but no references to where you got that information.
I see eeee (previously ddddd and previously ccccccccc) is once again being childish, flagging star and prophet.
eeee, please be an adult and quit throwing a temper tantrum. My six year old knows better than to do that.
EvanCal,
I hope you're feeling better.
I've heard a lot of talk about what the early church did in regards to child baptisms, but no references to where you got that information.
cal,
Why wasn't Jesus baptized as a baby? He was dedicated (which is scriptural). Why did He wait until He was older?
Probably to be an example, which many people miss.
Baby's cannot understand the Gospel. You must be saved to be baptized. You must understand that you are a sinner and repent of your sins. You must make a conscious decision to make Him Lord.
I haven't seen a baby yet, that could do that.
star2,
The Bible does allude to infants and children being baptized"Whole households were baptized". Yes, it is not explicit so we must look historically on how the very first Christians understood what the Apostles were teaching. The New Testament was not written at this time and the majority of people who became Christians were adults and as these adults got older and had children they always got their children baptized.
Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of the Apostle John and there are many writings discussing him baptizing infants and describes it as a covenental relationship being established.
We must not dismiss what the early Christians did, nor how they understood the Apostles' teachings. These early Christians got it straight from the Apostles and it is highly doubtful that they got it wrong based on all the corroberating evidence.
Forgive me if I am not spelling so well right now, ti has been a very rough week for me.
Star2,
While I appreciate your thoughtful insights 2Sam would not support a case that all children are saved and go straight to heaven, then we truly didn't need a savior then did we?
2Sam is truly reaching to say that all babies go to heaven. You are either of the New covenant or you are not. The covenantal relationship is established with God's people through Baptism. No other act, nor by faith alone is a convenant established in Scripture.
Baptism is the only way we become a disciple, a member of the Church, where we die with Jesus and where we are born again(regeneration). We are a new creature through baptism and all that was past is washed away.
Scripture does not say explicitly or implicitly what happens to children or infants if they are not baptized. All we can do without this information is to pray for these children and if you have children get them baptized so the covenantal relationship with God may be established.
Theologians see no other way our relationship is formally cemented other than baptism. If you are outside the covenant, then you are outside the Grace of God. A relationship must be established and for infants it is baptism and for adults it is faith and baptism. Infants can not have faith, so by being baptised they will be saved if they die before the age of reason.
It is all about the relationship with God in the end and it must be established some way, and the kingdom of God is for everyone. Faith is a gift, but you make it into a work like it is something these children must do. Faith comes to us as a gift. We are saved by Grace and that Grace comes to us through our relationship with him in a covenantal bond, which is baptism.
Believer
I am really looking forward to going. Not sure when I can get our family up that way.
thanks mathetes
wb, not yet but we're hoping to go this fall.
Thank you mathetes.
wb and star,
I appreciate the care and effort you both put into your posts. God was good to your churches and to us when He gifted you both. Keep up the great work. God bless you.
Star's explanation is better than mine, much more complete.
Hey believer, have you been the creation museum?
Tallguy1000
God said that King David was a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22). He kept God's commandments, he followed God with all his heart, did that what was right in God's eyes (1King 14:8). From Ps 23 we can see that King David placed his faith and trust in the living God to meet his needs, to protect him from his enemies, to be with him in the shadows of death, and etc.. King David ends the Psalm with "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I WILL DWELL IN THE HOUSE OF THE LORD FOREVER." (Ps 23:6)
King David knew that when he died he would go to heaven.
After David's son who was conceived in an adulterous affair died David cleaned himself up, anointed himself, and went into the House of the Lord to worship God (2 Sam 12:20).
Afterward David ate. When his servants asked why he ate, he said, "But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I SHALL GO TO HIM, but he shall not return to me." (2 San 12:23)
I believe God revealed to David when he went into the house of the Lord to worship God that he would see his son again.
Since David would see his son again, and since David was going to go to heaven when he died, then David's son had to be heaven.
About 2 Samuel 12:22-23 indicating babies go to be with God, it is because David was favored by God and God did not keep the infant alive, therefore, when David dies, he will go to be with the baby.
Jeremiah was pure before he left the womb, Jeremiah 1:5
Jesus carries the little ones in His arms (treats infants differently than adults), Isa 40:11
Each person is responsible for his own sins; Ezekiel 18:20 indicates each of our souls are alive until we sin.
When Paul became aware of the Law is when he died. Romans 7:9 "ONCE I WAS ALIVE APART FROM LAW; BUT WHEN THE COMMANDMENT CAME, SIN SPRANG TO LIFE AND I DIED."
In Numbers 14:28-35, we see the children are not responsible for grumbling, even though they suffer because of the parents - this indicates an age of accountability. Children are treated differently than adults - even by God.
In Nehemiah 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.
Sanctification of a believing parent is what makes the children holy, not baptism, 1 Corinthians 7:14
I'm not sure how the latter verse is reflected in what happens to infants of unbelievers.
Star2, how do you see that in 2 Sam 12:23? I don't..
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
EvanCal
Re: "Do babies go to hell then? If we have to born again, which to you is only an intellectual assent, then do babies who cannot be born again using your logic go to Hell?"
Scripture indicates that dead babies go to heaven(2 Sam 12:23).
I dunno. Star was trying to figure out who believer is. I felt left out :() so I decided to be a wiseguy. :)
What's up with these initials? lol
I know. I've watched people who lie try to recall what they have told whom. It can be quite amusing to watch.
Of course, its useful to use those moments to remind people that if you are not trustworthy in one area, then you are not trustworthy in any area. God generally brings one or two people into my life at a time to work on these sorts of things with. Right now, my wife and I have a young adult (mid-20s) living with us, trying to learn what it means to be an adult and Christian. She has had a hard time learning to not lie and not exaggerate and to be exact in the details. She's also had a hard time taking responsibility for her words or actions. She's learning though, praise God.
Its fun to watch God answer her when she starts arguing with me, trying to prove her point by "do you really think God would ..." or "why would God expect me to ..." or "what makes you think God ...." He answers her almost immediately! :) Quite fun to be used that way and watch God answer her in her head - without me having to say a word. She's started going to church on her own. Now if I can just get her reading the Word without our influence. I'm really glad to see God showing me fruit of our efforts.
wb, it's a good thing your not a liar since to be a good liar you've got to have a good memory! :)
wbm - Weely Bad Memory.
star2, Pike Association of Southern Baptists and Christian Counseling.
wb, does the w stand for wiseguy! :)
believer - Pike Baptist Assocaition? Is your PhD in psychology?
My initals are PJC.
My dad was born and raised in a log cabin in Clinton County Kentucky. Albany is the town in Clinton County.
if anyone cares, MY initials are wbm. You can substitute w for w. :)
star2, my initials are rcf or if you knew me as a catholic they are rcjf, but you can also substitute the "r"for a "b".
believer - I am about ready to give up in trying to figure out who you are.
star2, no those aren't my initials.
evancal, I think you've got me mixed up with someone else because I never asked those questions, my question to you was, if we are saved by grace and not by works, then how can water baptism be required for salvation since baptism is a form of works?
Evan,
I am the last one to complain about someone's spelling - I err too often myself! I'm thankful you are okay + I'll pray for your full recovery. God bless you.
Paul said he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. You’d think if it was as important as evangelism, he would have been sent to baptize as well.
1 Cor 1:7 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Example of being baptized with the Holy Spirit (‘Holy Spirit poured out’), and not having received water baptism: Acts 10:39-48
Example of being baptized with water, and not having received the Holy Spirit: Acts 8:14-17
There are many examples where we are told to believe and be saved (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.
1 Corinthians 6:11 speaks of the washing and renewal we have by the Holy Spirit, not water baptism (Titus 3:5).
Hebrews 10:22 speaks of having our hearts sprinkled (this is by the Holy Spirit), and our bodies cleaned (water baptism).
1 Peter 3:21-22 speaks of the water that symbolizes the baptism that saves us - that by the Holy Spirit.
21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsoâ€â€not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right handâ€â€with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
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 is by faith that we are saved. All these have in common is faith. It is the faith that saves us, and the actions that give evidence to the faith being real.
EvanCal
Re:Star2,If we have to born again, which to you is only an intellectual assent,
Born-again applies to those who know the difference between right and wrong.
You cannot become a child of God through intellectual assent. Such is done at confirmation and it is an act of the flesh.
You can only be born-again when God is dealing with your heart about (convicting you of) your need for God.
Let me illustrate what I mean about conviction.
In the afternoon on Oct 23, 1999 I was watching Christian TV and God told me that He wanted me to go street witnessing. So I took some tracks with me and went a couple of blocks from where I lived to hand out tracks.
I met with complete failure. No one wanted my tracks and I had a problem even approaching people which is unusual for me. So, discouraged, I decided to go home.
At a major intersection, I came across an Hispanic homeless man that was sitting on the curb. I decided to sit down and talk with him.
I had seen that he had cuts on his body and I asked him why. He said that he had been in a fight. He said that he was homless and that his name was Fabian.
I started talking to Fabian about Jesus. I was going nowhere.
There was a Wendy's at the corner and I asked him if he wanted something to eat. He said "Yes" so I treated him to a buffet at Wendy's.
While we were eating I showed him a spanish track that had a cross on the front of it and had heaven above the cross and hell below it. I told him that without Jesus you go to hell when you die and with Jesus you go to heaven. He would just sort of grunt and didn't show a great deal of interest.
After we ate we went back outside and sat on the crub. I show him the track again. I had an English version of the track and a Spanish version. He prefered the Spanish because he was more comfortable with that language. I don't understand Spanish but I know that Juan means John and etc and when scripture verses were used I knew what those verses said.
Well, he started to read. While he was reading I began to witness to him. I had to use simple terms that he understood. (continued)
EvanCal (continued)
This is basically what I said:
God says that Fabian is a bad boy. Fabian doesn't do what is right. He lies, steals, fights, cusses, hates, gets drunk. Well, when I said those things he came under conviction. He showed guilt over his sins which he didn't show when I first met him and witnessed to him.
Then I said that God says he has to punish Fabian for being a bad boy. I asked him if his parents ever punished him for being a bad boy when he was growing up? He said "Yes" and I said that it is the same way with God. I said that since Fabian is a bad boy then God has to punish him by sending him to hell for ever. Again God was convicting him of this truth. Fabian heard in his heart and knew that what I said was true that hell is where he was going because he was a bad boy. He knew in his heart that he was going to hell and he knew that there was no hope for him.
Then I told Fabian that God loved him and didn't want him to go to hell. He wondered what I meant by that. I told him that God made a way for Fabian to be forgiven so he wouldn't have to go to hell. I explained to him how God requires that sin be punished. I told him how Jesus took his punishmnent for him so he wouldn't have too. Fabian heard this in his heart and he knew that what I had said was true.
I asked Fabian if he wanted to accept what Jesus did for him and ask God to save him. He said, "Yes". I told Fabian that he needed to pray and tell Jesus. I told him to tell Jesus what was in his heart.
Fabian prayed. Afterwards, I asked him, "Fabian, do you know that you are saved?" He said, "Yes, I know that I know that I am saved."
When I first talked to Fabian about Jesus it was like he didn't hear me. He didn't believe he was a sinner, comdemned before God, and that Jesus died for him so he wouldn't have to go to hell. But after we ate and I talked to him about Jesus, God was there revealing to his heart and mind that he was a sinner, condemned to hell,that God loved him and made a way for him to be forgiven and have eternal life by having His Son Jesus Christ die for him.
When God reveals a truth to your heart I call that conviction. I don't know how to really explain it. You have to experience it. It is like trying to explain what 'love' is to someone. You really can't you just have to experience it.
Baptism of water and spirit are inseparable.
Acts 2:38-39
"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS; and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off,every one whom the Lord our God calls to Him."
Notice that baptism is God's grace for us that the gift of the HS comes at baptism. This promise is for children too and it is for EVERYONE GOD calls. The kingdom of God is for everyone at every age.
Thanks, I hope this was helpful to you. The overwhelming scriptural evidence is that we must be baptized to go to Heaven, to establish the new covenant, to be washed of sins, etc. Also, baptism of both water and spirit happens at the same time. This Spirit confers regeneration or being born again through baptism.
God bless you Matheets. If my spelling is a bit off, it is just because I'm still not 100%. Thanks for understanding.
EvanCal,
I'm afraid my resposne is too long to post here without being rude (I have been asked to keep my responses shorted).
So I am posting it here.
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/more-on-water-baptism-and-whether-it-is-for-childreninfants/
If I get requests, then I can post it on this site as well. But I dont want to be rude.
Here is a prefigurement of baptism; Ezekiel 36:25-27
25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
In Acts 22:16 Paul is baptized and his sins are washed away. "And now why do wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name."
1Corinthians 6:11, you have been washed meaning baptism's purifying effects(Acts 22:16; Heb 10:22)
Titus 3:5 also talks about regeneration of the person through baptism by the washing. "Born again" is regeneration.
1 Peter 3:20-21 "when God's patience wited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, NOW SAVES YOU, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a cleaner conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Mathetes,
Thanks for the correction on Jesus baptizing. I'm getting old and its been a rough week for me already with my heart having some problems this weekend. I'm not on my A-game.
I agree that both faith and baptism are needed for an adult. The Thief on the cross is a good question. Many theologians have come to the conclusion that this was an exception and if the thief had lived he would have been baptized. Jesus, being God, is not bound by his own sacraments or ordinances and gave this man full absolution of his past crimes so he had no sin. He accepted Jesus, but the theif showed remorse and wanted to change which shows contrition. By accepting who Jesus is, the thief was washed of his sins. Obviously, this thief had no chance to be baptized, so this would be the exception to the rule.
Notice also in Acts 8, they believed and were baptized. When Jesus was baptized the Holy Spirit came down to Jesus in the sign of a dove.
Here is the point. If you are of the age of reason and receive faith in Christ, then you will be baptized because that is the function or process of salvation. Baptism is a material gift provided by God to His people to establish this covenantal relationship, wash away sins, make them born again, etc.
Some received the Holy Spirit again after being baptized too. This was through confirmation of the Holy Spirit.
Confirmation is for young adults or adults to seal them with the Holy Spirit to live their faith as an adult. Baptism and Confirmation are both ways that Grace is infused to the believer. As a Pastor, I must go by what Scripture clearly says to do for all believers, which is to baptize them. For infants born of an elect family, those parents show prudence in baptizing them so that God's covenant is made with them too. Peter said in
Star2,
Do babies go to hell then? If we have to born again, which to you is only an intellectual assent, then do babies who cannot be born again using your logic go to Hell?
Thanks for this discussion.
The Word of God establishes what truth is. The Word of God in John 1:12-13 tells us that we can only become a child of God (become born-again) by the will of God. There is no other way.
John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
We see from this verse that a person cannot become a child of God or be born again by
1) being born into a Christian family (of blood)
2) by deciding on his own to be saved without God convicting his heart of his need for salvation (will of the flesh)
oo examples:
-- a non-believer marries a believer and decides to get saved for family unity
-- person affirms a belief that was bestowed on him through infantile baptism
-- person decides for Jesus because that is what is expected of him
3) parents deciding for them (will of man)
oo example - infantile baptism
A person becomes a child of God by being born-again by the Spirit of God when God decides (will of God).
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 the Savior and He will grant you grace to receive Jesus as Savior and Lord.
Good discussion. please let me to interject:
Jesus did not baptize as you said - see John 4:2.
As for baptism in water + Spirit being inseparable, what about the thief on the cross who believed, and the Samaritans in Acts 8? They rec'd water baptism but the Spirit came a little later.
Wbmoore,
I listed quite a few questions and you didn't answer any. Could you answer them please, thanks?
If you read all of John 3, you will see what Jesus means about being born again has nothing to do with amniotic fluid and that is a stretch since it has no other passages that support your hypothesis. Here Jesus talks about being born again and then right after he finished the lesson what did he do? He went out and baptized.
John 3:22 "After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. 24(This was before John was put in prison.) 25An argument developed between some of John's disciples and a certain Jew[i] over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordanâ€â€the one you testified aboutâ€â€well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him."
Here we see quite clearly that even Jesus baptized people and that he did this right after explaining to Nicodemus about baptism. Yes, we were born through flesh but now we are born of water and spirit and in baptism you get both and there is no sepparation.
EvanCal,
In every case, it is baptism of the Holy Sprit that was required.
Belief must exist for baptism to be useful.
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
Acts 2:21
And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be savedâ€â€you and your household."
Romans 10:9-15
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"
No mention was made of water baptism being needed.
The water baptism is asymbol of the salvation that saves us, baptism by the Holy Spirit.
Titus 3:3-7
3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
Confesing Christ as sent from God is an express of faith. Baptism is a form of confessing Christ, just as is calling on Him. The three are expressions of the faith that saves us.
EvanCal,
Christ said we need to be born of water and spirit, but He explicitly explained what that meant, and no mention of baptism was made:
John 3:3-6
3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." 4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."
Note, that Christ told us what it means to be born of water, that which comes from the mother's flesh with an infant's birth (flesh gives birth to flesh). This is the first birth. In the same way, Christ told us what it is to be born again, Spirit give birth to spirit; that is to say to be born spiritually from the Holy Spirt.
John 3:16
16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
Christ did not mention baptism, only faith.
Paul said he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. You'd think if it was as important as evangelism, he would have been sent to baptize as well.
1 Cor 1:7 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
wbmoore and believer,
A couple more things on baptism.
The only way to be a disciple of Christ is to be baptized in the trinitarian formula. The only way to heaven is to be born anew or born again through water and spirit, which is baptism. The only way to be a member of the Church and the body of Christ is to be baptized.
No where in scripture does it point that you can be a member of the Church, or a disciple or have your sins washed away without baptism. A Child's parents will by the Grace of God get that child baptized, so that their child is considered a part of the new covenant.
The new covenant is established only through baptism.
Peace, my friend.
Wbmoore,
Thanks. Yes, it was a scary moment for me because my chest was pounding like it was about to come out of my chest. Thanks for your prayers. I go in for tests this week.
The early church and reformation churches have never seen baptism as a work. It is a significant part of the salvation process. We can not earn our salvation by anything we do. The Mosaic law is the works that was specifically outlined that you cannot earn your way to heaven without a relationship with God. Many Jews in the OT did not have a relationship with God, and believed that we can earn our way to Heaven by strict adherance to the Mosaic law.
Faith in God is a grace and baptism is a grace. Grace is a free gift from God. Baptism is a gift from God to wash our sins away. We are only receiving this gift.
An infant cannot have faith, nor choose Christ so how can grace be given to that infant whether it be an infant of a Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Mormon or Budhist family? The bible specifically says that when we are baptised our sins are washed away and the Holy Spirit comes into us. It also says in scripture that if the parents believe, then their whole household may be saved. We must all choose Christ, but if you cannot choose Christ yet like an infant then a faithful parent will get that child baptized so that child will be a member of the church, washed away original sin and is now a disciple.
Do you believe Muslim babies are saved? I don't, but I can pray for God's mercy on them.
Do you perform dedications at your church instead of baptism?
EvanCal,
I'm glad you're ok.
Um... since baptism is a physical action you do, how do you figure that baptism is not a work?
Believer,
Sorry for the delay in answering your question. I had a bit of a heart palpitation this weekend that scared me a bit, but I'm ok now. When you get old the body just isn't what it use to be.
On Baptism: Do you believe that a babies of Christians, Hindu, Budhists, non-believers go to Heaven? Now, I can hope that they are all saved by Grace and especially by Mercy, but there is no place in the Bible that tells me explicitly that we don't need Baptism it tells me the opposite is true. In the Scriptures we see how we must be "Born Again" of water and spirit. The spirit came down from Heaven at the time of Jesus' baptism. The spirit is always involved at baptism and infuses Grace in us to make us one of the elect and a disciple of Christ. Without baptism we are not of the elect and we are not a disciple of Christ.
How is Grace dispensed? If we follow your logical assumption to its end then everyone is saved before the age of reason because you wouldn't baptize infants or young children b4 the age of reason. You have a universalis view of salvation and I do not. If Grace is just given to anyone without faith or even baptism, then all people will be saved no matter what and that is not my belief. I believe Christ came to save the whole world, but you must be of the elect and you must be a disciple which means you must be baptized and there is no way around it.
Now, pragmatically thinking God is not bound to the ordinances He demanded, but we are. God can will to save anyone He wants, but we must go by the Bible and it tells us that Baptism saves, that it washes away sin, and that the Holy Spirit is infused into us at Baptism making us born again.
I do not believe based on scripture that we can assume or hope for the best for our children. I will just follow what God told His people to do and baptize our infants. Everyone needs baptism to be saved. Baptism is not a work or something you earn, anymore than having faith is a you earn. My faith calls me to be baptized and baptize my children so that they too can be members of the body of Christ, be born again and be saved. Without baptism, the infant's fate is on par with children of hindu's, budhists and others non-believers. There is nothing in Scripture that explicitly or implicitly says baptism is only for adults, but rather baptism is for everyone. If you don't baptize your infants, then you are not depending on Grace you are depending on Mercy. To be of the elect, something must make you different and that difference is Baptism and the fact the Holy Spirit now resides in you.
I hope I aswered your question.
believer -are your initials JEC?
night all, May Jesus Bless us with Wisdom and Joy! :D
i dont have an alias :(
star,
Me too.
I have aliases but I'm not telling you what they are. I don't like using them because I like the person behind star2 better.
roger that, proph.
my code name is huh-huh-huh
reveileb is good, unless whoever you're hiding from is dyslexic
That's 21st Century evangelism at it's finest.
Oh yes, believer. Espionage and intrigue around every corner. LOL.
My alias is prophet2....you think anyone will know it's me?
prophet, I didn't realize blogging could be this daring and cunning, my alias could be reveileb, what do you think?
I'm sure if I keep quiet long enough he'll show his face. But he's not going to post again until he thinks I'm gone, and he can continue his inflammatory remarks. But, like him, I have aliases too. So when he thinks I'm gone.....I'm not.
cccccccc is a troubled soul.
It looks like cccccccc (now dddd) is making good on his threat to delete all of star2's and Prophet's posts.
what a wonderful story! May they help many come to know Jesus our Lord. And those orphans get shoes, how heart breaking when babies dont even have basics :(
Father in the name of Jesus please help the Ukraine evangelizing, that many become solidly grounded in Jesus , in Truth and in Love. Amen.
more flagging wars, lets stop the insanity! lets all play nicey nice.
you two are too funny. Thanks!
Hahahaha!
Star,
That is so true. Touche! I'm certainly glad you have a sense of humor. God bless you.
A man's ego knows no bounds!
Proverbs 16:18 - "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
I just hope that Star takes it for what it is. LOL. I've corresponded enough with her to feel comfortable that she'll understand that it was a joke.
Prophet! THAT was too funny! :) made me bust out with a guffaw!
and in regards to "God bless our wives....for having the grace and patience to stay with us pieces of coals! Amen."
I have to say amen.
Revelations 8:1
"And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour."
That proves that women won't be in heaven.
sorry...bad joke...I was hoping to keep it amongst us manly men. lol. I didn't realize you'd pop in.
I hope you know I'm teasing
Women won't make it to heaven Prophet? Where is that in the Bible?
But I have to say that the Bible does say that women won't make it to heaven.
My wife said that one of the greatest gifts I gave her for our anniversary was a simple, typed copy of the Proverbs 31 woman(Proverbs 31:10-31).
She keeps in her Bible to remind her of how I feel about her. I try and read it often to remind me of what a blessing she is.
wbmoore,
I've always said "Why would I want to go find myself? I'd rather go find someone more interesting."
God bless our wives....for having the grace and patience to stay with us pieces of coals! Amen.
wb, being a piece of coal is kind of a cool thing to be here in Sotheast Kentucky, but you're right God has truly blessed me with the helpmate and partner in ministry He has given me and I'm sure you have been to.
believer, sounds like your wife starts as a polished gem. My own was a gem, now she's much more polished.
Me, I'm pretty much coal. :)
Prophet, you got me laughing again.
I alway ask people who say something like they want to find themselves, "Just where do you think you are?"
LOL.
Reminds of a sign I saw once.
"I went out to find myself. If I should get back before I return, then please keep me here and call me to tell me that I'm here."
I think team ministers are a great idea. I love having a husband and wife co-leading children's ministry and youth ministry, with the husband being the head of the team. The reasons I like it is that men and women think and feel differently. They have different priorities. They interact with God differently. They have different gifts. Also, I love the idea of a woman dealing with young ladies and a man dealing with young men.
Prophet,
*big grin* you really got me laughing! My brother has been in therapy for years trying to learn to be happy. I really feel for him. Bt what you wrote brought him to mind immediately.
Perhaps I should have said *I* and a sinner. :)
wbmoore,
You said "We are lazy, intimidated, self-conscious sinners."
C'mon! Don't tell me that! Now you're steppiing on my toes. I thought I was fine the way I am...now you tell me that I'm a sinner. Aw, geez. Now all those years of therapy just went down the drain. I've just finally come to grips with the fact that I'm fine the way I am, and everyone has to accept me, faults and all.
hahahaha.
I'm kidding of course. You hit the nail on the head.
It is too easy to abdicate our responsibilities to women, and they are often all too willing to step up to the plate.
One of the things I counsel women who complain to me that their husbands do not take the role of spiritual headship in the home is to stop stepping up to the plate for them and stop trying to get them to do things the way they would prefer it to be done. Inevitably, as the women stop taking on spiritual leadership roles in the home, the men DO step up - in time. They simply do not want to have to deal with the perceived/anticipated problems. We are lazy, intimidated, self-conscious sinners. We have been conditioned to be/act/think/react certain ways. These are sometimes contrary to how God has designed things to be. We need to help men learn what GOD means when He said we are to be the head of the house.
If it turned out I was still not able to find a man to fill the role, I would ask another church to help, or simply let the role be unfilled until God chose to bring the right man for the job.
another area we are missing in our churches today is the ability to call on men and women from like-minded sister churches to fill needs.
Amen,
Discipleship and accountability are almost non-existant in our churches.
believer,
I would have to disagree to a certain point. In our case, I know pretty much everyone at our church (especially those who have been there a while or have ministry there), and I am extremely sensitive to the Spirit. When it came time to nominate, I found plenty of men who were willing, and even involved in ministry. But I found very few who were spiritually capable. Though they were leaders and workers, their spiritual life was extremely lacking.
But that may because they purposely or subconsciously abdicate these roles to women.
I am not saying a woman can not be a deaconess. I am simply asking what should her role be?
In churches with elders and deacons, I think it appropriate for women to be leaders in support roles. On the other hand, if deacons fulfill the role of elders, as in the case of many Baptist churches (not all), then I would question that position being appropriate for a woman.
Of course, I am not saying whether she is capable of filling the role. This to me has nothing to do with capability. This has to do with God, God's word, and people being willing to listen to God.
In the case where there are no men who I feel are ready for the position, of say deacon, I would find men who have the spiritual maturity and then mentor them to help them learn the role. If no one had the maturity, then I would find a man who wants to grow to that level of maturity. Then I would place them in the role, with the understanding that this was both a time of testing and growth and seeking God's will. Once they have proven themselves, and I feel this is what God wants, I would then ordain them for the role.
One of the things we are missing in churches today is the concept of apprenticeship. We need to spend time with young men on a regular basis. Get to know them. Test them. Prepare them. Place them in positions where they grow in their abilities - both to minister and to seek God's will and obey (especially in difficult areas).
prophet, I believe there are enough men, but too many of them have abdicated these roles to women and that why we have these gender role issue problems in the Church in the first place.
wbmoore,
Good comment.
We used to have a woman who was a counselor at our church. Also, a powerful woman of God, wise and filled with conviction and power. I would go to her for counselling in a heartbeat (with my wife present of course).
I am a deacon at my church, we have a woman who is a deacon on our board. I nominated her. Why? Partly because I felt like she was qualified, and partly because when I went through our church register to find people to nominate (we had 3 postions to fill), I could only find a handful of men that I felt were capable to fulfill the role. It was hard to find a mature, committed Christian who I felt comfortable. Many of the men I passed over were even in some form of ministry (music, youth, children, small groups, etc). But since my wife and I have been there so long and know everyone very well, it was easy to see who would and would not be suitable to fill the role of a deacon. And those few I saw that were capapble were already on the deacon board. LOL. I ended up nominating 3 women and 1 man.
When there are not enough capable men to fill ministry, I believe that women are just as capable.
wb, as a minimum I think Senior Pastors and elders are two roles a woman cannot hold since in most churches they would automatically give her spiritual headship over men. The others I would want the job descriptions to be clearly wrote out to show that if a woman takes that position there is no possibility it would allow for her to have spiritual headship over men. Plus, I could see some of those roles being a husband and wife role where the husband would deal with the men and the wife would deal with the women and I could see the possibility of male and female co-leaders in some of these roles to prevent spiritual headship problems.
The roles I can think of where it probably would not be appropriate mostly deal with upper levels of leadership. There are questions that need to be considered.
For instance, should a woman be director of children's ministry? If so, should men who would be subject to her authority, not be able to teach children?
If a woman is a Biblical counselor, should she counsel men?
Should a woman be an associate pastor? If so, should her role give her authority to correct men's doctrine?
Should a woman be an elder of a church?
Should a woman be director of youth ministries?
Should a woman be an associate pastor? if so, should she should she help set the spiritual direction of the church? Or should her duties limit her to children and woman?
wb, if you think about it there a very few roles that a woman can't hold in the church, because very few roles would automatically give a person spiritual headship over men. Plus I'm very fortunate that my wife's parents were two very godly people and raised her to be the same. In some areas she is more spiritually mature than I am but she doesn't hold that over me. I jokingly tell people she is a cross of Marsha Brady, Mary Poppins, and E.F. Hutton, she's totally organized, almost perfect in every way, and when she speaks it is best to listen to her.
My wife has grown a great deal in maturity over the years as well. She has a great practical grasp of the word, particularly as concerns teaching godly traits to the kids.
Prophet - Usually women head children type ministries.
The intended and targeted audience for Joyce Meyer and Marilyn Hickie ministries are women. If men want to go then they can and God at times touches their lives as well.
Also there was this one Church I went to that had a ladies ministry called the Daughters of Zion. It was headed up by a woman. We met the last Saturday of every month. We had a worship service and fellowship afterwards. The worship service was done entirely by women and only women attended. We had praise and worship time, an we took an offering to help pay the woman who preached, and a message from a woman who ususally was in the ministry. We had invitation time where you could ask for prayer, get help in receiving Jesus as Savior and Lord or get prayer for whatever your need was. Many miracles happened. People were healed, saved. There was always a big move of God in our midst.
When I did street witnessing most of the people God had me speak to actually were men. Men do not intimindate me and I had no problem witnesing to them except on one occassion. Many of them didn't seem to have any problem listening to me either. God actually touched some of their lives. One guy actually broke down and cried when I told him that God loved him. Another one God encouraged his heart about getting a job when I prayed that God would give him one. One that I know of for a fact became born-again because I personally led him to the Lord. Others that I didn't speak to directly but heard my conversation were also touched. One came back to God. Another guy who over heard me speak to someone actually followed me and listened as I went to another person to speak to him about Jesus.
God will use whom ever He wills but I still believe that Pastoring a Church is reserved for men.
Yeah, I have to change my approach with my wife too. She seems hungry to know more about the Word, but I have to try to remember not to get too deep with her. There is a lot of deep spiritual things that I'm understanding of, but sometimes I'll start off talking with her about something fairly simple and basic, and before you know it I'll be over in the deep water and she's floundering around looking for a life vest. lol.
But I want to make it just far enough beyond her to make her have to reach and grow.
But she has grown a lot! Now sometimes when situations come up and I get down or frustrated, she'll say something that I never thought she'd understand (much less speak), and it will blow me away.
I said internalized, because my wife had said ever since I knew her that men are to be spiritual leaders in the home. But her actions were incongruent to her stated belief. It took a long time to get her actions in line with what she stated.
There should be no problem with women in missionary positions, so long as she does not have spiritual leadership over men. There are plenty of roles women can fill that dont require women to go against what the Bible says.
But yes, there ARE some missionary sending agencies who allow women take the role of spiritual leader over men.
Prophet,
My wife's mother tried real hard to teach her conflicting ideas of loving and serving her family and being a strong independent feminist who trusts and needs no one. Talk about dichotomy. She was damaged by men, her family, and society in general. She had no idea of teamwork. She did not understand love or trust or how to argue fairly or politely. She grew up in the church and while she knew some scripture and some Biblical principles, there really was no Biblical worldview.
Eventually, somewhere along the way my wife finally internalized the fact that God has placed men as spiritual heads of the home. It took a long while though. And she did not like feeling convicted by God's word and would seem to think I was purposefully looking for scripture to attack her. In fact, all I was doing was going through the Bible one book at a time. I had to change my teaching style for her.
We have had to work on being a team and loving and kind and determining our roles.
I just realized something.
Though many denominations won't allow women to have "leadership" roles in church, they certainly have no qualms about sending them to foreign countries as missionaries.
webmoore,
I have the same experience. I am a third generation Christian, grandson of missionaries, son of a pastor. My wife was brought up religious (went to church because it was small town and the social thing to do), who's father was a drunk and mother undisciplining.
When I married my wife, she didn't even have the basics of Christianity down. She didn't know who David and Goliath were, or Noah or Moses. She only knew that Jesus was the Son of God. But, because of her upbringing, she was extremely independent and dominating. So, to try and teach her things was quite an undertaking. It wasn't so much that she wouldn't understand, it was that she wouldn't apply some things that the Bible taught, such as turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have done to you, etc, because it went against her independent nature. I, being tactful and diplomatic, and her being opinionated and forward, made for some interesting discussions. Even after 15 years we still deal with our power struggle in who's the head of the household.
A link to this article has been posted on the website GoodNewsNow.com.
Star,
I agree with you. However, I can speak from experience, that sometimes the wife can make it difficult to teach, especially if the man has no experience or low self esteem or little practice relying upon God to give a message. Although I have had my private devotions, my wife and I had to learn how to have devotions together, and then family devotions as well. And I am not known for low self-esteem. but she grew up in an environment very different from me, and I had to learn that even if she was challenging what I said that I was to teach and not take it personally. I am not sure why, but I could take being challenged, or even attacked, from others with aplomb, but sometimes even simple questions to which I had ready Biblical answers to made me feel inadequate (perhaps because I did not feel she wanted to learn, but to be right? I dunno). I had to learn to trust God in this area. We eventually worked it out, but I must say, it was quite intimidating for years.
star2, although you're preaching to the choir you're right on target!!
believer and Prophet
Thank you for your support.
believer - Yes, I agree that men are not stepping up to the plate at Church or at home. I particularly see a real lack of men being the spiritual leaders of their homes. They don't go to Church with the family and they do not have daily devotionals and prayer time with their family. I believe if they did even if the husband/father doesn't have the gift for teaching scripture, that if he took the responsibility and got with God that God would grace him with a message he and his family need. I believe if the husband/father did have daily devotionals and prayer time with their famly that they all would grow closer to each other, to the Lord, and would have a happier home life. The kids I believe would have more of a sense of security, feel loved more, and be more successful in school, in their relationships, and be stronger in living for Christ and denying worldly temptations that they are so constantly being bombarded with. I feel like the wife would feel more loved, would fulfil her role as a wife and mother better and would become a more godly woman. I think the man would do better at work, be more of a godly man, and he would certaintly be a greater influence in his family, at Church, and at work.
Star,
You go girl!
star2, I personally don't have a problem with a woman teaching men since that does not automatically give her spiritual headship over the men she is teaching. The problem I have is that it is long overdue for men to step-up in both the home and the church and take on their rightful roles to include teaching and discipling other men. My opinion is when Paul said women are not to teach men I personally believe he was referring to teaching a specific issue, that being that women could have spiritual headship over men and he was not referring to simply women teaching men. Because in Timothy he commends Timothy's mother and grandmother for doing such a good job at teaching him the Word of God. And for the most part I enjoy what you bring to the table.
evancal, thanks for your response and I would still like to hear how you balance the fact that we are saved by grace and not by works and then say the work of baptism saves an infant? I don't see how both can be right and especially since there is no Bible to support the latter. Please don't be offended, but I would prefer hearing your belief and not a view from the church fathers as you call them, thanks believer.
chris and evancal,
you take Paul's words to Timothy about women being silent and not in teaching positions over men, and you apply them to all churches for all time. my question is this: do you always pray with your hands lifted up? If not, you are sinning, or at the very least, violating your own principles of interpretation. Many men like to quote or preach on 1 Timothy 2:9-15, in order to keep women in their "proper" place. But when you do not obey verse 8, you prove you are picking and choosing to suit your own interpretation. Verse 8 and 9 are obviously connected by the word which begins verse 9, usually translated "Likewise" or "In like manner."
If you want to enforce one, be sure you always enforce the other as well.
Msnchris70,
Let's quote the whole passage to get the context: 2 Peter 1:20-21
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is {a matter} of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Seems to me Peter is speaking of the WRITING of scripture, not the way star2 or any of us are interpreting it. I wanted to be sure, so I checked my Vine's regarding that word "interpretation":
INTERPRET, INTERPRETATION, INTERPRETER
2. epilusis ^1955^, from epiluo, "to loose, solve, explain," denotes "a solution, explanation," lit., "a release" (epi, "up," luo, "to loose"), (2 Pet. 1:20), "(of private) interpretation"; i. e., the writers of Scripture did not put their own construction upon the "Godbreathed" words they wrote. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words)
To make a case for papal authority based on this verse is clearly eisegesis.
msnchris70
I do not have to blindly accept what someone who has apolstolic authority says about Scriptures. The Bereans didn't and they were considered more noble than the Thessalonicas who just accepted what they were taught.
Acts 17:10-11
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Star2,
I am glad you stood up to that homosexual and used scripture to support your case. Even I would approve of that! So good for you.
I also did not flag you, just in case you were wondering.
Also, have you ever heard the 80 rule?? You can make any statement with scripture and all I have to do is look 80 pages ahead or behind and I could find something in scripture to refute it.
The issue with interpretation of scripture is and always has been authority. The Bible tells us that "NO PROPHESY OF SCRIPTURE IS OPEN TO PERSONAL INTERPRETATION" and yet this is what you and other Protestants clearly do.
My only point is that Christ gave His Church, the one he founded, which is the Catholic Church His authority through the Apostles to the Bishops. The Church has the final say, which is not the laity but the hiearchy. We laity can offer constructive opinions, but only the Holy Spirit protects those in charge. The Bible clearly shows how Jesus gave the Apostles power to make doctrine, bind and loose, legislate, create practices and have authority over His flock. I can also match that biblical narrative with history, but you cannot.
Your huge missing like is that you can not historically prove your interpretation and I can, so you respond that you don't care about history because you are more right in your interpretation than people who knew the Apostles.
I do appreciate what you wrote about how you conduct yourself in church and the other things you wrote about how a woman should act in church too. This will be probably one of the few times I give you any kudos, so don't think I am warming up to you. I am simply stating a fact of what I can objectively appreciate in you.
EvanCal
Thank you for requesting that I not be flagged any more.
CP is not Church. It is a discussion board open to anyone, Christian (conservative or liberal), atheist, agnostic, or whatever, who wants to to express his/her views.
The Wrod of God is what defines truth for me. There are many voices in the world. If what is said does not align itself with the Word of God I reject it. I do my best to defend what I believe scripture teaches. I am not perfect. I make mistakes and I have misunderstandings but I am teachable and I allow God to correct me.
I have had another male besides you, msnchris70, and IHS claim that I should not be teaching in the Church because it violates scripture.
This is what another male CP poster said to me. (Taken from http://www.christianpost.com/article/comment/20080402/eu-high-court-rules-on-gay-marriage-rights.htm)
"Thayers's Biblical Lexicon defines teaching (didaskein) as holding "discourse with others in order to instruct them"; "instill[ing] doctrine" or "explain[ing] or expound[ing] a thing" within a theological context.
Communications made by star2, or any woman, which attempt to instruct in Biblical matters are BOLD violations of Scripture and therefore stand in direct defiance of God.
star2:your refusal to follow Scripture's command for a woman not "to teach," Biblical doctrine but "to be in silence" is rebellion against God and His Word."
He said all this in response to my position on homosexuality that I backed up with scripture. I had seen him post before on another article and when I reveiwed his posts I saw that my position was in direct opposition to his. I concluded that since he had no biblical response to counter my position then he got defensive and brought up this "women are to be silent in the Curch". (continued)
EvanCal (continued)
This was my response to him:
"I am female and a born-again Christian.
I follow the teachings of scriptures.
I do not wear men clothes nor any thing pertaining to a man.
When I attend Church I dress modestly. I wear a loose skirt that goes to mid-calf and a top that has a completes covers me. I don't wear make up because I don't like it. The only jewerly I wear is a watch. My hair is short but it is an appropriate length for a female.
I do not approve of women pastoring Churches. I do not believe that they are called by God to do so. I would never attend a Church that had a female Pastor.
I am silent in the Church unless God moves on me to speak. When He does it is usually to share a testimony of what He has done in my life or to request prayer for either my needs or the needs of those I know.
I submit to authority. One church that I attended the Pastor asked the congregation to memorize scriptures in 48 different areas. I was the only one who memorized them. He asked me to quote them to the Church body. He called me up to platform. When I got to the base of the platform I stopped and waited for him to invite me up on the stage because I felt it was not my place to stand on the stage without his permission.
I don't teach in the Church, though, I did assist in Children's Church because that was what God wanted me to do. Later, my Pastor's wife asked me to teach Children's Church. I did that for about a total of about 2 yrs.
Even though teaching is my spiritual gift, I have no interest in teaching men. I like ladies classes.
I serve God in word and deed not only in the Church but also on the street, at work, or anywhere I may be.
I post on CP because that is what God said He wanted me to do."
EvanCal
I never said Catholics are not Christian. 30-40 years ago I thought what the Catholic Church teaches was the only right way to do things. Then I accepted Christ as the one to whom I belong and I read and studied the Bible and theology. Now I think the Roman Catholic Church teaches certain issues incorrectly. I presented some of those issues.
The reasons I have problems with those issues have little to do with my personal experiences, as I had no negative experiences as a Catholic. The reasons have to do with what I see Scripture teaching. I belive the word of God must be the measure against which we test everything. So I compare what I had been taught and have since heard and read with what the Bible teaches.
I think that there is a difference in understanding of common terms that leads to an inability of many Roman Catholics and many Protestants to communicate effectively. An example would be on the issue of saved by grace alone and what that means.
I grew up Catholic. My mom loved the church. I do not, but neither do I find it repulsive. I simply find it has some bad doctrine on what I consider to be important issues.
Unlike some on this website, I have no problem with the idea of the ability of Catholics to be saved by faith in Christ alone. I know some I certainly would not doubt they understand their position in Christ. Unfortunately many others who are relying upon water baptism as a ticket to heaven, with no repentance toward God and napparently have never been washed by the Holy Spirit and have no obvious divine guidance living within them.
I also realize that there is a difference between the official position of the church and the practicalities of how it is interpeted and practiced by various orders within the church and how it is understood by the layman.
The problem with the church universal is that man is there. We are imperfect. Each denomination teaches one or more issues incorrectly, or there is a disconnect between teaching and practice.
wbmoore,
I appreciate all the time you took in bringing up some points against the Catholic Church. As a Reformed minister there are still some profound areas that will still need to be discussed before unity can ever be reached.
I would say that you wrote a lot of your opinions much like I might of 30 years ago. This is not an insult, but an observation. I'm sure you have many experiences that have led you to these positions. I would encourage you if the opportunity presents itself to seek more formal education at seminary. In seminary and in getting a Masters or PhD, you will find many of the things you wrote are caracitures of the Catholic Church, and not infact the real thing. It has taken me 20+ years to realize that the majority of beliefs I had about Catholics were misplaced. Twenty years ago I would have gone so far to say that Catholics were not Christians at all. Today, after 30 years of research, fellowship, doctrinal research and historical study that I can say they are 100% Christian. No, I Have not gotten soft in my old age. I am profoundly sad that it took me this long to realize it through all my study and loyalty to the Bible.
You wrote a lot of information, which is too much for me to discuss each point, so I will thank you for your time in writing it and hope that you will consider reading information from a Catholic stand point.
I have never feared reading information from other Christian groups from their perspective. I feel it leads us all into dialogue and Truth. In the end, we all want to be one Christian Church with no division so that we can more effectively proclaim the Gospel of Christ. I have read hundreds if not a thousand books by Catholics and I didn't ever fear of converting, but it gave me a perspective biblically and culturally to understand why they do the things they do and why they believe the way they do. I may not believe how they do, but it is reasonable to think how they do based on their scriptural interpretation backed up by their historical and culteral information. It is different, but it is not unreasonable.
I am thankful to all my Christian brothers and sisters who love Christ. While I might aggresively disagree with my Baptists friends on baptism and my Catholic friends on the infallibility of the Pope, I count them as fellow Christians and I am proud to stand next to them as we defeat liberal secularism and ungodly values.
Mathetes,
Thank you for repeating your question concerning women in ministry. Yes, Paul was in Ephesus and he was speaking to the Church in Ephesus, but this Church he spoke to was not of a different faith as the other churches. Paul was speaking to the Universal or catholic churches. His location was in Ephesus, but his teaching was for the universal church for all times and all places. All of the earliest churches were of one mind and one faith.
The Ephesus Church was in full communion with Rome, with Jerusalem, with Antioch, with Corinth. They were all the same church with different particular locations.
We also would say in the Reformed Tradition that there is no scriptural basis for women to be ordained. Also, there is no historical evidence that points to women ever called to ministry either. Catholics would say that there is no Tradition of women in ministry. We do see some cases in heretical groups, but they were clearly not Christians since they denied Christ humanity. Jesus only called men to be ordained. Who are we to change it?
I hope this was helpful.
Believer,
Maybe I got you confused with someone else as I was dealing with quite a few volleys yesterday and I'm not a young man anymore. Sorry for the confusion and being aggresive towards you.
Be blessed.+
In dealing with Mary and saints acting as intercessors for people between God and Man, Scripture says otherwise.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
I also have problems with the idea of a perpetual virginity for Mary.
Notice that Scripture says Joseph had no sex with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. This says she was a virgin when Jesus was born, but the word 'until' implies afterwards Joseph had sex with her.
Matthew 1:24-25
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Also, she was married and had other children later - at least James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, as well as at least two sisters.
Mark 6:3
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of JAMES, JOSEPH, JUDAS, and SIMON? Aren't HIS SISTERS here with us?" And they took offense at him.
Also, When one uses the term 'firstborn', this implies there are other children born afterwards.
Luke 2:6
While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her FIRSTBORN, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus and when she delivered Him, but she was not one afterwards; she had sex and gave birth to other children.
Of course, water Baptism is commanded, but it is an issue of obedience, an expression of faith, not salvation. If you believe, you will obey, which is exemplified through baptism: (Mat 28:19-20)
But without faith, the obedience does not count. (Mark 16:15-16)
We see that simple water baptism is insufficient, we must be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Again, water baptism followed baptism of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-16)
The Jailer and his family household believed, and only later were they baptized, note that nothing indicates infants were present. In fact, no scripture indicates infant baptism is appropriate. (Acts 16:31-33) *I* have a household, with 5 kids living in it, none of them infants, but one is an adult. It is not true to say a household normally has infants. It IS true to say that a household normally has an infant AT ONE POINT IN TIME.
Paul said we were baptized by the Holy Spirit not water (1 Cor 12:13 ).
According to Paul, we were saved through the washing of the rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, not water (Titus 3:4-5 4)
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/baptism-water-or-spirit-required-or-not-is-it-for-infants/
In regards to whether water baptism is required for entrance into heaven,
Christ HIMSELF said we need belief in Christ for eternal life- not baptism.
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.
John the Baptist said
Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
John 3:3-6
3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. " 4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
Note, that Christ told us what it means to be born of water, that which comes from the mother' flesh with an infant's birth (flesh gives birth to flesh). Just as He told us what it is to be born again, Spirit give birth to spirit; that is to say to be born spiritually from the Holy Spirt.
Christ said we need to believe to have eternal life, not mentioning baptism, in John 3:15-18
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
People who believe Christ is the Son of God are living stones - speaking of the faith believers have. Peter showed he was a stone (of faith) because He said Christ was the Son of God.
Even Peter Himself said believers are living stones.
1 Peter 2:5-8
YOU, also, LIKE LIVING STONES, ARE BEIING BUILT INTO A SPIRITUAL HOUSE to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through JESUS CHRIST. For in Scripture it says: "See, I LAY A STONE IN ZION, A CHOSEN AND PRECIOUS CORNERSTONE, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." Now to you who believe, THIS STONE IS PRECIOUS. But to those who do not believe, "THE STONE THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CAPSTONE, AND A STONE THAT CAUSE MEN TO STUMBLE AND A ROCK THAT MAKES THEM FALL." They stumble because they disobey the message - which is also what they were destined for.
So no, Peter is not that upon which the church was built. Christ was. It was believers of Christ being the Son of God (like Peter) who were used (as stones) to build it with.
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/roman-catholicism-really/
Matthew 16:15-18
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and ON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD BY CHURCH, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Catholics want to use verse 17 to say Peter was the Rock upon which Christ founded His church and somehow that makes the Pope the rightful successor.
The word Peter means rock, however I disagree that Peter was the foundation upon which Christ built His church. If He did, then that would contradict the scriptures that clearly state otherwise. The only understanding of this scripture is one which is in agreement with other scriptures that state Christ is the stone upon which the church is built. See 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, Ephesians 2:19-21.
Christ warned the Jews of what would happen, that they would reject Him, and He would become the capstone.
Psalm 118:21-23
21 I will give you thanks, for you answered me; you have become my salvation. 22 The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; 23 the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes.
Mt 21:42:43
42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes"? 43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."
Mk 12:10-12 is similar, except Vs 12 adds, "Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away."
If Peter was the foundation upon which the church was built, why would Peter saying exactly CHRIST is the foundation stone in Acts 4:8-12?
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is "the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone." 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
1st, Mark 10:13-14 does not speak of baptism.
2nd, The Roman Catholic Church is not the holy apostolic church.
As I'm sure you know, the Church of Jerusalen started on the day of Pentecost. It was not until afterwards, mid 1st century, that the Church of Rome started. Rome changed the Nicene creed toward the end of the 6th century, and the Orthodox church objected. In 1054 the crisis came to a head when a Papal legate, threw a fit because the Orthodox Church refused to acknowledge the Pope's inflated claims for prominence and distorted doctrine, excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch then excommunicated the Pope.
The problem was with Rome trying to take power and having bad doctrine, they split from the Orthodox Church. The doctrine and power problems continued until they fomented the Protestant Reformation, which was an attempt to rectify the excesses, abuses, and doctrinal problems of the Church of Rome.
MissionaryMike
I have done missions work overseas. I have also studied church planting and been part of a church planting team. I have evangelized, taught and preached in English and Spanish in various places like the Bahamas, US, Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Brazil.
My statement was "I totally agree with some of the sentiment here. I think one of the problems many churches and missionaries worldwide have had is the influx of money without the spiritual maturity needed to handle it. Its like giving babies who have no teeth steak to eat - they might be able to gum it and maybe get some of it down, but they are not really getting what they really need. "
I was not talking about the SBC specifically. I was speaking of the use of outside funds in general to plant churches. There have been more than a few instances of churches coming to expect the outside support and not being able to support themselves.
EvanCal,
I wrote the following earlier as the forum touched on a subject I've wondered about. I would like your thoughts, but I figure you've left, and I must do the same. If you have time to respond, I would appreciate it, but it's not necessary; the moment has passed, so to speak. Peace to you, brother.
EvanCal and IHS,
Since you brought up women and teaching, let me ask you a question: when Paul wrote those words to Timothy, was he stating that principle for the church in Ephesus only, or for the universal church in all times and places? Why, or should I say, how do you know your answer is correct?
evancal, just needed to know if everything is okay with us since I felt you kind of ripped into me for no real reason that I could figure out?
The day is coming when there will be a falling away of the saints. Those who are not founded firmly upon the Rock, will be swept away in the flood of false doctrines and false miracles. The Church that Jesus was refering to will emerge. And many who claimed to be a part of the Church will be left by the wayside. The Church will emerge triumphant and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Churches that preach heresy and false doctrines will grow, but they will be impotent and dead. But the True Church will grow in power and wisdom, coming into the fulness of the image of Christ. The Bride will be spotless but humble, powerful but meek, just but loving, wise but teachable.
I pray that those that hear these words will be encouraged and be among the ones who persevere to the end.
Also, please don't flag Star2 even if you don't agree with her or anyone else. Flagging is for abusive, Spam, Offensinve, Illegal, Racist or libellous Posts and although we have all said certain things that may not be considered the most charitable, let's try and relax a bit and let the Holy Spirit calm our hearts and minds.
Peace to you all.
ONe last thing Prophet, divorce is highly frowned upon and should never be taken lightly. Divorce should only be allowed in extreme cases. Each case is highly individualized, so I've tried to give a generalization to a very specific and sensitive topic.
Peace.
But not the true church...or should I say the Bride of Christ. The day is coming when God will sift His church, and those who are not strong will be swept aside to let the True Church (or Bride of Christ) appear in all it's glory and power. Yes, I agree that the Church does not bear a denominational name. But not all that call themselves Christian will be a part of the Church.
Prophet,
Is the marriage question for me?? If it is, then I will say scripture does allow for divorce but never allows for remarriage if it was a valid Christian ceremony. Civil ceremonies are not recognized as valid without a wedding in a Christian ceremony where you bring God into the marriage to bind it. Marriage is for life and it is a sin to marry, then divorce and remarry. It would be adultery.
I hope this is helpful.
Mathetes,
Could you ask me your question again, my friend? Who keeps flagging all of us? I think flagging is not appropriate just because we might disagree. Truth should always prevail and the scriptures are always are way to refute items.
Thank you.
Hi Prophet, we are all members of the Church but none of us alone are the Church. The Church or assembly takes more than one, it is a community. It is both the physical Church such as the hiearchy and the spiritual church of all the believers which make up the body of Christ. Technically speaking, the gates of hell will never prevail against THE CHURCH that professes to be a part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. This includes Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. If you bear witness to the Apostles creed then your beliefs are in the mainstream of Christianity and spiritually you are a full member of the church. As long as you have been baptized then you are a member. There are many churches that disagree on serious doctrines, but they are still conssidered Christians.
I hope this helps.
Do you also agree that people who remarry after a divorce are sinning? How about people in leadership roles and alchohol?
Who's flagging people again?
evan,
I have to agree with mister e. What church are you talking about? And if I'm truly part of that church, then,yes, the gates of hell won't prevail agains me.
So, who's all in this church? People who call themselves Christians, and yet are duped into false doctrines...how are they going to prevail against the gates of hell? Are they part of the Church?
EvanCal,
Just wanted you to know, I am not your adversary. I understand the tennis match feeling, and I can wait for your reply. Whenever you have time, I'd like to know your thoughts.
Like the Scripture says, we must be "Born Again" through water and spirit. This is baptism. As an adult we must have faith too, but as a child before the age of reason the gift of baptism washes away original sin and puts the Holy Spirit into you.
Thanks believer.
I need to go for awhile. I need to give my dogs a bath.
I know no one is shedding any tears of me leaving for awhile.
MisterE,
I never made any comment towards you. We all make up the body of Christ, which is the Church. We have saints and sinners in this body, but none of us are the church as an individual we are only the church as a community. You and I are members if we believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord, died for our sins, etc. Go to the Apostles Creed.
I don't think you and I have ever discussed anything, so I wasn't making any remark to you.
Also, you will know your fellow Christians by their fruit. I know I bear fruit everyday and I know morally I stand on the right side of Scripture too. No gay marriage, no abortion, no euthanasia, no cloning, no women ordained, etc.
Peace.
Man EvanCal do your church a favor and resign. Your lack of understanding of the Word of God knows no bounds.
I say that Catholics are not Christian because the way they get 'saved' is not scriptural. You have to violate the teaching of John 1:12-13 to say that Catholics are saved. There are probably a few but some of those end up leaving the Catholic Church.
The gates of hell will not prevail against the revealed truths given by God.
evancal, where did that come from about me not believing Catholics are Chrisitans, heck I'm living proof that's not true, but you totally avoided the question in my post, so what's up with that?
You idol EvanCal is the opinion of man.
Prophet,
The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. You are not the church, but a member. Humility, please.
Individualism can be taken to become a sin of self centered idolotry.
Believer,
You are of a group of Christians that has always been outside historic Christianity. I could say the same exact thing you said to me to you.
I work with many baptists and pentecostals at ecumenical meetings and have been blessed by their witness to Christ. I have gained much from them, and I hope they would say the same about me.
While I love my Baptist and Pentecostal brothers and sisters, I still feel they have some beliefs about scripture that are quite wrong as I'm sure they feel the same about me and the Reformed Tradition. Baptists recently have had a harder time with Pentecostals saying that they are Christians, rather than Catholics. Baptists in the past have always considered Catholics the enemy and Catholics just ignored Baptists.
My point is that you and I will disagree about doctrine and we will probably disagree on who will win the Super Bowl too, but the majority of Bible believing Christians accept Catholics as Christians. The fact that you don't does not make your position more superior. It just means you enjoy being the underdog per se. The majority of conservative Christians accept Catholics as Christians. The majority of extreme liberals and extreme fundamentalists do not.
I think a lot of denominations have some unbiblical beliefs, but as long as those beliefs don't deny the salvific work of Christ then I accept them. If they believe in the Apostles Creed, then I accept them. I am not a liberal since we don't have any of those in our church. We are strict conservative Christians and we accept Catholics as Christians. Years ago we would not have, but then again we didn't exactly talk to each other either. I praise God for all our discussions in charity.
evancal, maybe because you got caught up in your discussion with star2 and prophet I noticed you did not respond to a post I sent you with regards to you saying we are saved by grace and not by works. That being true which by the way the Bible says it is then how can baptism save an infant or anyone since it is a form of works? And works can save no one. Plus would a baby have to be rebaptized when they reach the age of reason? Because if that's the case the Book of Hebrews says that if it is possible for a person to lose their salvation it is impossible for them to be saved again?
What's the matter IHS, you have to falg because the kitchen getting too hot for you?
EvanCal
Re: I am sick and tired of fundamentalists like Star2 who have no sensibilities.
And I am sick and tired of false prophets like you, and msnchris70 leading people astray.
And the gates of hell will not prevail against me.
Evan,
You speak like you know about prophets. No doubt you do. And so you'll know that they were rarely accepted. Even by the people of God. I do not expect to be accepted by you, or star, or believer, or anyone. But I am accepted by the One who called me. And in that, my faith is secure. And my heart joyful.
ihs, yes we may be the minority but so were Joshua and Caleb and if the majority would have listened to them the Jews would have possessed the Promised Land a whole lot sooner and not have had to watch a whole generation die off and spend forty years in the Wilderness. Plus is being wholeheartedly obedient to God and abiding by the truths taught in the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God puts us in the minority then Praise the Lord for being in the minority.
EvanCal and IHS,
Since you brought up women and teaching, let me ask you a question: when Paul wrote those words to Timothy, was he stating that principle for the church in Ephesus only, or for the universal church in all times and places? Why, or should I say, how do you know your answer is correct?
IHS, once again you are showing your ignorance.
R:"Wherever Star2 is, there will be trouble. Unless you agree with her you are going to hell is her philosophy."
I never sasid that. I shared with you on what scripture teaches on what it takes to be born-again. If your salvation experience doesn't align itself with the Word of God then you are lost. You are still dead in your sins. Die in your sins and you will go to hell.
RE:"I agree with you EVANCAL. A woman has no place to teach a man anything if she takes was St. Paul says seriously and because she only interprets scripture to meet her own theology she will never learn much."
You say this because you have no defense for what I shared about what scripture teaches.
RE:"Star2 has her own new denomination in her mind and it is a church of self-idolotry."
Your idol IHS is man's opinion.
Re:"I am also not Catholic, but most Evangelical Christians that I meet in seminary consider Catholics Christians."
That just means that they don't understand scripture.
But, then again, many Protestants don't study either. They blindly follow what the pastor teaches. I'm a third generation Christian. It would be so easy for me to do like many other "born into the church" Christians do, and just accept things the way they are because "if it was good enough for my dad, then it's good enough for me." (My grandparents were missionaries, and my father a pastor). But God put something in me that will not let me accept "just because that's the way it is." He put a drive in me to learn the truth. And the Holy Spirit (not the Pope, or Billy Graham) will lead us into all truth.
There is a lot that's wrong with all the denominations. I'll never find the "perfect" church. So, I just stay where God told me to. There have been many times when I've said "God, you're moving over here." of "They're teaching stuff that I believe over there, so I want to go there." And He just says "No. I want you here." So I stay. Come hell, persecution, trials, tribulations...I will not move until God tells me. I will not speak unless God tells me. And I will definitely not keep quiet when God tells me to speak. I'd rather die than tell God "No."
I do question their salvation sometimes when they do away with salvation by faith. Since a majority of them do not search the scriptures themselves, they blindly follow the teachings of the Church, which (as I said) much of that is false.
TheLordIsMyLight is a Catholic who used to come on here quite a bit (I'm actually suprised I haven't run into him on here). Whenever I asked him, and many other Catholics, and theological question their response is always "Well, the Church teaches...." or "The Pope says...." Many times I've asked him for scriptural references, to which he replies "I can't find my Bible". If I'm going to have a theological discussion, I'm sure gonna have the Bible handy to refer to. And even when I'm not, I always know where it is because I study it regularly.
That is where my problems with the RCC come into play.
Prophet,
I'm sure we all have teachings that are not completely biblical in another persons eyes and that's the problem! I'm glad to hear you think Catholics are Christians. I am sick and tired of fundamentalists like Star2 who have no sensibilities.
At one ecumenical meeting, there were some very well respected Pentecostals who said Baptism isn't needed at all and it wasn't important to be baptized using the trinitarian formula. A Lutheran pastor had to be held back from punching him for saying that! They said,"Just baptize in the name of Jesus and you are good to go." This kind of theological relativism is more rampant than you think. Every single group seems to be watering down scripture and it makes me sick.
We get together to charitably discuss scripture with fellow Christians to come to one consensus. We desperately need to be of one mind and one faith in our one baptism for our one and only Lord Jesus Christ.
msnchris70 you as well as Evancal and IHS are also bigots.
so far that I know here at CP I am the only one who is bold enough to come out and say that Catholics are not born-again. I say this because of their unscriptural teachings on salvation. There may actually be a few but they are extremely few.
EvanCal
I am a child of God. I have been born-again by the spirit of God through the regeneration of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of a changed life. I am a bride of Christ.
I am a single woman. Since I am a bride of Christ, Jesus is my husband. I'll let Him deal with you and teach you.
I judge not your salvation but I take how you say you were saved and measure it up against the Word of God. According to scripture you have never been born-again by the spirit of God.
I have been called a prophet. Many times. By other prophets.
Or did I need to come see you first, and get your approval? Just curious.
I never said Catholics aren't Christians. Please do not assume. I said they teach unscriptural doctrine. And catholics are just another of the many denominations of Christians, with their own little view. Though they try to deny it.
Wherever Star2 is, there will be trouble. Unless you agree with her you are going to hell is her philosophy.
I agree with you EVANCAL. A woman has no place to teach a man anything if she takes was St. Paul says seriously and because she only interprets scripture to meet her own theology she will never learn much.
Star2 has her own new denomination in her mind and it is a church of self-idolotry.
I am also not Catholic, but most Evangelical Christians that I meet in seminary consider Catholics Christians.
Your view is in the minority Star2 and Prophet and small minority at best.
Star2,
You make very large prudential judgements about whether or not I am saved or lost. Like MSNChris said many times before your EGO is larger than any man on this board. EGO(EDGING GOD OUT). You lack any humility and as a women you scripturally have no place to teach me anything. Have your husband talk to me or teach me something new and I will be open to listen to him. If you have no husband then be quiet as the Bible teaches.
Women have no place in deciding matters of faith it is the man who is the head of the family and it is the man who leads the congregations as God intended it.
Star2 also claims too much. You are not God and therefore have no place to make prudential judgements about another person's salvation.
Prophet,
Prophets usually don't call themselves prophets. By reputation others call them Prophets because they prophesy and are never wrong, and since you have no credible witness that you are a prophet, then you are just a person who claims too much.
A little humility would be proper and thus far I would be excited to see you exhibit any of the cardinal virtues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit.
I am not Catholic for various Scriptural reasons, but this does not mean I think Catholics are not Christians. They are just as much as you are.
By your writings I will guess you have never been invited to an ecumenical meeting, so I will tell you that you would be surprised how much the body of Christ is fragemented and how often someone says they are led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation to have another Christian interpret that same passage completely different. The Holy Spirit cannot be wrong, so only one group can be right. Just because you say your interpretation is right, then back it up. You would be surprised how convincing some arguements can be objecting to your interpretation.
So, if so many are wrong and there are so many different denominations saying different things and yet all say they are guided by the HS, then someone is wrong. It is only logical. We need to have the HS guide us all to Truth and discover once and for all the fullness of Christianity and that will be the Church I will be in.
EvanCal
Based on your testimony you are not born-again. You are still dead in your sins. My definition of being born-again is not new it is as old as scripture itself.
You have no understanding of the Word of God.
You don't even know what it means to be under conviction.
It has nothing to do with emotional hype.
FYI, I was saved in a Baptist Church not a Pentecostal Church.
EvanCal
Scripture teach 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 (will 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 and He will grant you grace to receive Jesus as Savior and Lord. (John 1:12-13, John 6:44, Romans 10:9-10,13)
John 1:12-14
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 6:44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
Romans 10:9-10,13
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Star2,
I was saved, I am saved and I will be saved.
Tit 3:5- He saved us throu bath of rebirth, nerwal by the Holy Spirit. When you are baptized, the water washes away your sin through the power of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit now dwells within you and you are sealed as a disciple of Christ. Only through trinitarian baptism are you a member of the body of Christ.
To be born again is to be baptized by water and spirit. Pentecostals are always looking for some sort of ecstatic experience. Emotional experience is not a measure of one's faith or level of Grace.
When I was baptized I was saved, then I had to make a choice for Christ at the age of reason. I did. So, I have been baptized and had faith. I have had many emotionally uplifting experiences as a Christian. I have not walked away from him my entire life so I have never had that epiphany type moment that many people experience psychologically because I was never far from him. Those who experience this emotionally based feeling are only realizing their need for God and to turn away from their past evil deeds and lifestyle. I am not saying that I don't sin, because I do but I have never walked away from the faith my parents instilled in me. I have always lived by the 10 commandments because my faith in Christ tells me this is how I show my love for Him.
Your definition of "Born again" is a new definition and it is unbiblical in your understanding and has absolutely no historical merit.
Faith is a gift from God it is not a work. We are saved by Grace, so for infants the Grace of Baptism is enough to save them but this does not mean they are saved later if they reject faith in Christ.
Your definintion of Born Again is reduced down to a emotional experience. Again, Pentecostals are high on emotion but not too high on theological insight. Low theology high emotion. This is why Pentecostalism is a free for all, and why they split up more than Baptists do.
Other than some Assembly of God leaders, most Pentecostals look down on education. They say they want to keep it simple, but I think they just don't want to be educated because it will prove their hypothesis of scripture wrong.
evan,
If you believe as the Catholics do, why aren't you one? Because if you believe as they do, then you must know that they are the one true church and that you are apostate if you aren't Catholic.
If what the early church fathers taught, was not scriptural, then I choose not to believe them, nor acknowledge them as true patriarchs.
I would like to be corrected, but the Holy Spirit's conviction that the RCC's erroneous teachings are corruptive won't let me.
And I will not take my place as a prophet (which is above a pastor) to rebuke you. I'll leave that for the Spirit.
Mark says to receive the Kingdom of God as a child. With complete faith and untainted love. And honesty. But unfortunately, children are also easily misled by false teachers.
And I've posed three questions. None of which have been answered.
EvanCal said, "As a Pastor I charge you to see the counsel of the Holy Spirit through Scripture."
You would do well to listen to your own advice.
EvanCal - You are a false prophet. I pity the Church you pastor. They have a shepard who knows not the Word of God.
EvanCal - From your writings here it seems as if you didn't even read what I asked you to read because if you had you would have seen your error.
Yu may have a PhD in Systematic Theology but you have very little or no skill in interpreting scripture.
The teachings and the practices of the RCC and all those who think in a similar manner are heretical. I don't care if the RCC has some moral stands, their teachings and practices are not scriptural.
If you can't see that scripture teaches that a lost person becomes born again of the Spirit of God when that person hears that he/she (hereafter refered to as he) is a sinner deserving of eternal damnation, that Jesus paid for his sins by dying on the cross for him, that God raised Jesus from the dead showing His power over death, accepts what Jesus did for him, turns to God in prayer confessing to God that he is a sinner, asking God to forgive him of his sins because of what Jesus did for him, asks Jesus to come live in his heart, and be the Lord (boss) of his life then you don't know what it takes to be born-again.
Scripture also teaches that one of the evidences that a person has truly been born of the Spirit of God is that the believer has a changed life; he is no longer the same person (2 Cor 5:17).
QUESTION: EvanCal, have you ever really been born-again by the Spirit of God through conviction in your heart that you were a sinner in need of a savior and that Savior was Jesus Christ?
Or did you become 'saved' when your parent(s) had you baptized as an infant and then later in life you affirmed your 'belief'?
evancal, you're 110% correct we are saved by grace and not by works, baptism is a form of works and works can save no one. Plus, are you saying that infant baptism just temporarily saves a person and when they reach the age of reason they have to be saved again. Because in Hebrews it says that if it were possible for a person to lose their salvation they cannot get saved again.
Prophet,
The Kingdom of God is for everyone especially children!
Mark 10:13-14 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
13And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
You are officially corrected. As a Pastor I charge you to see the counsel of the Holy Spirit through Scripture.
evancal, please show me in the Bible where salvation by proxy is taught, but you may as well not waste your time because it is not there.
EvanCal - You are lost.
Prophet,
I am not Catholic. I am a Reformed Minister with a PhD in Systematic Theology and a duel Masters in Historical Christianity and Scripture.
I do not twist Scripture and I only agree with what the earliest Christians did and how THEY interpreted Scripture. Baptism of infants is scriptural and historical.
Peace+
Southern Baptist missionaries have do a good job in planting churches . They called themselves strategist instead of missionaries and love the people that they are converted to Southern baptist Baptist . They do a good job .
Prophet,
I have much enjoyed reading many of the things you have posted in the past. I do feel that you have misplaced your energy against the Catholic Church though and should focus that energy on liberals, relativists and secularists which all three may be the same.
Right now, Reformed Churches, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodosts, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ and Orthodox are all having very high level discussions at the Vatican. The fact is the Catholic Church is the biggest defender of Life and of traditional marriage. We Reformed see their strength in these areas where they always stand up for Christian values even before us Protestants come around to it like abortion. Catholics were always first to recognize abortion was wrong and it took many years before many conservative Protestant Christians realized this as well.
I say this because of the moral authority the Catholic Church has shown its steadfastness which has lead many denominations who are dealing with a bunch of nutty liberals who interpret the bible morally very different to see the strength of the Catholic Church. This has led us Reformed at least to start to deal with each doctrine that sepparates us. When I say high level conversations I am talking about the brightest and most gifted scholars that all Protestantism has to offer working with Catholic theologians to erase this divide.
Truth will never be sacrificed for unity! Scripture will never take a second seat to Tradition, so we are working dilligently with the Catholics to see this through. More progress has been made in the last 5 years than in the last 400. The end times could be here soon. We must strengthen each other to be strong against the devil.
I pray with the Grace of God that in less than 50 years that the majority of Christianity with be in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I don't know if that future catholic Church will have a Pope or not or have the same powers of jurisdiction or not or whether ecclesiology will have to change to in order to mirror Scripture and historical record. I pray for unity.
Extreme Fundamentalist Christians have little more than a small voice because God doesn't want their hatred of other Christians to be heard. God will either bear fruit in you or he won't. Fundamentalists bear little fruit on the worldwide stage for God, so they have little impact and this is why they are so vocal and belligerant.
Here's a trivia question that maybe someone can answer:
What book of the Bible did Hipplolytus of Rome write?
And, again, Catholics take a scripture and twist it to suit their views, instead of the other way around.
Mark 10 does not say that the Kindgom of God is for children.
Why wasn't Jesus baptized as a baby? He was dedicated. Why wasn't he baptized until He was 30?
Baptism didn't replace circumcision.
Believer,
I made no assumption. In Jn 3:5 and Mk 16:16 we see that Baptism is required for entering heaven. Lk 18:15 we see that people were even bringing infants to him. We see in Col 2:11-12 that baptism has replaced circumcision. In Acts 16:31 we see if the husband of the family believes then the whole family will be saved. In Acts 16:15 and 16:33 and 1 Cor 1:16 we see whole households being baptised and this meant everyone.
If you are an adult or of the age of reason you must have your own faith and then be baptized. If you can't speak for yourself, then your parents can speak for you. Remember it is Grace that we are saved, not by works!
The faith of the parents does provide for the baby who cannot speak for themselves, but they Must and I repeat must accept the faith of their parents in Christ at the age of reason. Baptism will save infants because original sin will be washed away. Once the child reaches the age of reason they must have faith.
Hipplolytus of Rome(215ad)"Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themslves(infants), let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents for other relatives speak for them."
The fact is history speaks volumes of all Christians baptizing infants. We as Christians are new Jews in Christ and what circumcision was for the Jews baptism is for the Christians(covenant theology).
Why is there not one writing in the first 1600 years of Christianity challenging infant baptism??? Because the Apostles clearly taught that the Kingdom of God is for children too(Mk 10:14).
Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Orthodox, Lutherans, Reformed, and many others practice infant baptism because it is biblical and historical. Only newer christian groups reject this because they refuse to tie history with Scripture. These groups represent over 85% of Christianity and we all believe that Baptism of infants is right and those who do not baptize infants and rather dedicate practice a antiquated Mosaic law practice for Nazarites which is completely unheard of in the New Testament and any early Christian history. They simply never dedicated babies.
And he didn't hang around long enough for me to tell him that even Jesus said that flesh and blood will not enherit the Kingdom of God.
star,
LOL. Yes, I know. I just didn't want to name names. LOL
Prophet, the Catholic poster was thelordismylight. He is a guy who is about 46-47 yrs old and is an executive attorney for IBM in Pennsylvania, Phillidephia I think.
tall guy,
You also said "If they reject you, they reject me."
And yet the RCC continually rejects their brother's and sisters. What's that say about the RCC?
"the Holy Catholic Church defined Christianity. You just refuse to believe. "If they reject you they reject me"
No, Jesus defined Christianity, the RCC tainted it.
I had one Catholic (who is/was a regular poster on here) try to convince me that heaven was a physical place....and that heaven was all around us. Figure that one out....
Why do the Catholics continue to teach false doctrines, and yet claim to be the "True Church"?
I'm a part of the Church that Christ instituted, and I'm not even Catholic.
EvanCal
I know that you do not agree with my position that infantile baptism and salvation is not scriptural. However, I do hope you will at least read and consider what I said about the issue. I have a 4 part post to IHS beginning on Wed Jul 09 2008 8:58pm and a 2 part post below (Thur July 12 12:34pm)
EvanCal
There was heresy in the early Church (1 Cor 11:19, Gal 5;20, 2 Peter 2:1). Infantile baptism is one of those heresies.
msnchris70 said:
1. Because in the Bible whole households including children were baptised.
2. All have original sin, and baptism washes away this sin for infants and all people. Bible based reason.
3. If we are truly saved by Grace, then you would make Faith in Christ a work for the infant and since works do not save you but only Grace, then you baptise infants. At the age of reason a child or adult must affirm their baptismal vow and belief in Christ.
4. You only become a part of the Church by being Baptised, so without a Child being baptised they are not a disciple of Christ and not a member of the Body.
5. In baptism we are born again with water and spirit. This is open to all irregardless of age.
6. In baptism we are united with Christ death and resurrection, and infants must be included.
This was my response to msnchris70:
According to your belief, a lost person, without making a decision for Jesus, can be saved based on the belief of someone else. This is not scriptural. (John 1;12-13)
According to your belief, an infant, can be saved if the parent(s) choose that for them. Again, this is not scriptural. (John 1:12-13)
According to your belief, a baby can have original sin washed away from him through baptism. This is not scriptural because we alway have to deal with and choose between our sin nature and our new nature if we are born-again by the spirit of God with the evidence of a changed life.(Romans 6)...continued...
EvanCal- continued
The Church, which is the body of Christ (Col 1:18), consists of all people who have been born-again by the spirit of God through the regeneration of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of a changed life(Titus 3:5). Baptism has nothing to do with it. Baptism is an act of obedience. Anyone can be baptised. Anyone can say they believe what ever they are required to confess. All that will not save them.
The only way one can be saved is if God the Father draws the sinner to Jesus (JOhn 6:44), convicts his heart that he is a sinner, needs a Savior, and that Savior is Jesus Christ (John 16:8-11). Then if the sinner choose to accept what Jesus has done for him from his heart, turns to God in prayer, and asks Jesus to save him (Romans 10:9-10,13) then he becomes saved or born again of the spirit of God and Jesus baptizes him into His body through the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13).
Baptism (water baptism done by man) will not save you. If that were true, then the repentant thief on the cross who Jesus granted eternal life to would have never been saved. But he was because he believed from his heart on Jesus Christ and looked to Him alone for salvation.(Luke 23:40-43).
You can say whatever people want you to say, you can do whatever people want you to do but that will not save you. Baptizing an infant for salvation, having him as an older child or adult affirm his baptizmal vows and belief in Christ will not save him.
If God isn't dealing with your about being a sinner and in need of a Savior, and that Savior is His Son the Lord Jesus Christ then you cannot be saved by the spirit of God.If you are not saved by the spirit of God then being baptized is a waste of time. All you have done is get wet.
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 s child of God by being born-again by the Spirit of God when God decides (will 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 and He will grant you grace to receive Jesus as Savior and Lord.
evancal, you make a huge assumption when you use the story of the Philippian jailer and his family coming to Christ and being baptized to justify infant baptism. The bottomline is that the Bible clearly teaches that the act of baptism comes after one is saved not before one is saved. And no one can be saved by proxy each person is to make that decision to accept Christ of their own volition. And while there are some who believe the act of baptism is part of the salvation experience they also realize that baptism alone can save no one. Plus you have to make the assumption that there was an infant in the jailer's household who got baptized as opposed to people who were all capable of making a decision for Christ.
EvanCal
Re:The biggest problem with Pentecostals and Baptists is that they reject the historical record of early Christians. They won't even look at it and seriously don't care about historical Christianity because it would counter many of their beliefs. We see clearly in history in the first century that the disciples of the Apostles baptized infants. THEY ALL DID IT. You will see it from the very beginning. Where Scripture ends, history shows how they understood it.
Why should they? The teachings and practices are not supported by scripture. The Apostle Paul told the elders at Ephesus that after he left that people within the Church would rise up, speaking heresy and drawing people after them. Infantile baptism is one of those heresies.
Acts 20:28-30
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Re:Infant baptism is scripturally and historically a Christian rite
If this is what you believe then you have zero understanding of the Word of God in terms of salvation and baptism.
Re:Well, when scripture explicitly says that whole households were baptized then we believe that whole households were baptized which includes all members.
Yes, and I already showed that the Phillippian jailer's household believed after they all heard the gospel preached by Paul and Sials (Acts 16:32), and after they all believed they were all baptized (Acts 16:33).
RE:Your error, my sister in Christ,
No EvanCal, you error.
I have defended my positions on infantile baptism, and salvation on this thread to IHS. The 4 part post begins on Wed July 09 2008 8:58pm. Did you read those posts that gave my arguments proving that scripture does not support infantile baptism and what it takes to be saved (born-again by the spirit of God)?
Tallguy - Your mindless parroting of the false teachings of the RCC are getting old as well.
Star2
The RCC is not the definition of what Christianity is. It is quite the opposite.
My sister, the Holy Catholic Church defined Christianity. You just refuse to believe. "If they reject you they reject me".
My sister, I'm signing off I have a job to do. This is going nowhere. I can tell from previous comments that most people on this thread agree that your mindless rant is getting old. You refuse to honestly read and research before you rant. May God bless you!
Star2,
I will answer this question about infants and baptism. We in the reformed Tradition have always baptized infants.
Why?
Well, when scripture explicitly says that whole households were baptized then we believe that whole households were baptized which includes all members.
Your error, my sister in Christ, is that you have adopted the theology of specificity. You would also have a problem with the incarnation, the Trinity, confirmation, confession, etc. Even the Apostles Paul likens Baptism to circumcission. Now, adults are never circumsized so why would he use this analogy then?
Please study covenant theology for a better perspective. Old covenant was established with the Hebrew people through circumcision. The new covenant relationship with God is through Baptism. It is God's gift and that is why infants are allowed to receive this gift of Grace, but the they must reaffirm their baptismal grace through confirmation when they are of the age of reason where God confirms them for more of an adult relationship with God and the Holy Spirit works more fully in their lives(See how at Pentecost the Apostles were confirmed by the Holy Spirit). That was confirmation.
The biggest problem with Pentecostals and Baptists is that they reject the historical record of early Christians. They won't even look at it and seriously don't care about historical Christianity because it would counter many of their beliefs. We see clearly in history in the first century that the disciples of the Apostles baptized infants. THEY ALL DID IT. You will see it from the very beginning. Where Scripture ends, history shows how they understood it.
Infant baptism is scripturally and historically a Christian rite. Dedications are from Mosaic law and only apply to men who want to live as a Nazarite. Dedications never occured until the late 1900's. They are not a rite of Christianity, they are jewish and for men only.
There is no salvation in the Catholic church. The RCC is not a pathway to God. Follow the teachings and practices of the RCC and you will perish.
The RCC is not the definition of what Christianity is. It is quite the opposite.
Tallguy
I do more than just casual read. All I am saying is that if anyone just reads the Bible in a casual way they will see that the teachigs and practices of the RCC fly in the face of the Word of God. Everywhere Jesus said don't do something you all do it. If He says that there is a certain way to do something then the RCC does it a different way. It doesn't take a genius to see that. The RCC needs to stop forcing the Bible to say what it does not say. I have shown you on several issues as well as others have that RCC teachings are false. Your clergy has NO understanding of the Word of God. The masses don't either because all they do is parrot what the clergy says. Those who do leave the RCC do it because they see that the teachings are false.
The teachings and practices of the RCC are heretical and the RCC is an apostate Church.