Majority of Episcopalians Favor Scrapping Ban on Gay Ordination

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

Episcopalians overwhelmingly favor tossing a previously approved resolution that bans ordaining openly gay bishops.

In discussions that began Thursday afternoon and continued Friday morning during The Episcopal Church's triennial General Convention, Episcopalians spoke frankly, testifying passionately either for throwing out the ban or against rescinding it.

"Gays and lesbians are asked to make sacrifices the rest of us are not asked to make," said the Rev. J. Frederick Barber of Fort Worth, according to the Episcopal News Service.

Debate centered on resolution B033, which was approved by the General Convention in 2006. It calls for restraint in ordaining bishops "whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church," mainly noncelibate homosexuals. It was passed amid calls by Anglican bishops overseas who were outraged after The Episcopal Church – the U.S. arm of Anglicanism – consecrated its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, in 2003.

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the global Anglican Communion, addressed the General Convention on Thursday, cautioning against making decisions that could "push us further apart."

But on Friday, some Episcopal leaders pondered whether "sacrificing" gays and lesbians is worth securing unity with the rest of the global communion.

"Will we continue to sacrifice a portion of God's people for a false sense of security with those who don't want to be with us?" the Rev. Liz Zavanov of Hawaii posed, as reported by the denomination's news service.

The majority of Episcopalians who were randomly selected to speak on the resolution rejected B033. Few asked to preserve the resolution.

With relationships with the rest of the Anglican Communion still fragile, the Rev. Dan Martins of Northern Indiana said keeping B033 intact is necessary.

The Rev. Charles Holt of Central Florida argued, "We are damaging the body of Christ by insisting on our own way. This is not a faithful witness of the Gospel."

The few speaking in support of B033 may be reflective of the smaller number of conservative Episcopalians present at this year's General Convention.

According to the Rev. J. Philip Ashey, Chief Operation Officer of the conservative American Anglican Council, says the number of orthodox "willing to stand against the tide of TEC's agenda is vastly reduced from previous conventions."

"With such a numerically diminished opposition, TEC leaders have a free hand to draft and pass virtually any legislation they like," Ashey said, reporting from the convention in Anaheim, Calif.

In addition to resolutions asking for the repeal of B033, the General Convention is considering proposals that would allow blessings of gay and lesbian unions in states where same-sex marriage or civil unions are legal.

Those in favor of blessing same-sex unions argued on Wednesday that it's a matter of simple justice and equality.

But others said it's not that simple.

If it were a matter of simple justice, it would be a "no-brainer," Sue Carmichael, a deputy of the committee on Social and Urban Affairs – which is considering the resolution – said.

"I just can't discount the Bible," she added, noting the struggle that many Episcopalians have with passages in the Bible that oppose homosexuality, as reported by the Episcopal News Service.

The General Convention opened on Wednesday and will conclude July 17.

Next Story : Obama, Pope Discuss Abortion, Stem Cells

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:43 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

absojc »

Danpat1 2000:

What of the thief on the cross?

Incomplete sentence _(not being smart) Are you speaking of St. Dismas, and what specific question? A guess on my part?
Are you asking if he was baptized? The answer is yes, but not "baptism of water." As I have posted earlier there are several types of Baptism:

- water (the most common)
- of blood (the martyrs)
- of desire (that of the thief on the cross [St Dismas}

Baptism is the sacrament which erases Original Sin (the sin of Adam and Eve from our souls)

If I were back in those days I would have tried to add one more with Peter - of Bourbon

"Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit (Jn 3,5). The clear meaning of these words of Jesus to Nicodemus, emphasized the more by their solemn formulation, declare the universal obligation to receive this bath of regeneration. So basic is this necessity that whereas the ordinary minister of baptism is a deacon, priest or bishop, in an emergency anyone, even someone not baptized himself, may baptize. Such a one must have the intention of doing what the Church does by baptizing and, while pouring the water on or immersing in water the one to be baptized, must invoke the Blessed Trinity: "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Even in such an extraordinary circumstance, the Church's faith is celebrated, that faith which holds that "Christ is present in the sacraments by his power in such a way that when someone baptizes, Christ himself baptizes"

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16,16).
danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:57 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

PART V MORE Henry Grey Graham

"Protestants in these days send shiploads of printed Bibles abroad, and scatter thousands of Testaments hither and thither in every direction for the purpose of evangelizing the heathen and converting sinners, and declare that the Bible, and the Bible only, can save men’s souls."

"What, then, came of those poor souls who lived before the Bible was printed, before it was even written in its present form? How were nations made familiar with the Christian religion and converted to Christianity before the 15th century? Our Divine Lord, I suppose, wished that the unnumbered millions of human creatures born before the year 1500 should believe what He had taught and save their souls and go to Heaven at least as much as those of the 16th and 20th centuries; but how could they do this when they had no Bibles, or were too poor to buy one, or could not read it even though they bought it, or could not understand it even if they could read it? On the Catholic plan (so to call it) of salvation through the teaching of the Church, souls may be saved and people become Saints, and believe and do all that Jesus Christ meant them to believe and do— and, as a matter of fact, this has happened—in all countries and in all ages without either the written or the printed Bible, and both before and after its production."

"The Protestant theory, on the contrary, which stakes a man’s salvation on the possession of the Bible, leads to the most flagrant absurdities, imputes to Almighty God a total indifference to the salvation of the countless souls that passed hence to eternity for 1500 years, and indeed ends logically in the blasphemous conclusion that our Blessed Lord failed to provide an adequate means of conveying to men in every age the knowledge of His truth. We shall see, as we proceed, the utter impossibility of the survival of Christianity, and of its benefits to humanity, on the principle of “the Bible and the Bible only.” Meanwhile we can account for the fact that intelligent non-Catholics have not awakened to its hollowness and absurdity only by supposing that they do not sufficiently realize, “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” (as the English Prayer Book says) this single item of history: The Bible was not printed till at least 1400 years after Christ."
danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:52 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

PART IV: MORE Henry Grey Graham (Protestant Researcher of the Bible)

"Nor will it be out of place to remark here that the Bible was not written originally in English or Gaelic. Some folks speak as if they believed that the Sacred Books were first composed, and the incomparable Psalms of David set forth, in the sweet English tongue, and that they were afterwards rendered into barbarous language such as Latin or Greek or Hebrew for the sake of inquisitive scholars and critics. This is not correct; the original language, broadly speaking, of the Old Testament was Hebrew; that of the New Testament was Greek. Thus our Bibles as we have them today for reading are “translations”— that is, are a rendering or equivalent in English of the original Hebrew and Greek as it came from the pen of Prophet and Apostle and Evangelist. We see this plainly enough in the title page of the Protestant New Testament—which reads “New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated out of the original Greek.”

"A last point must always be kept clearly in mind, for it concerns one of the greatest delusions entertained by Protestants and makes their fierce attacks on Rome appear so silly and irrational— the point, namely, that the Bible, as we have it now, was not printed in any language at all till about 1500 years after the birth of Christ, for the simple reason that there was no such thing as printing known before that date. We have become so accustomed to the use of the printing press that we can scarcely conceive of the ages when the only books known to men were in handwriting; but it is the fact that, had we lived and flourished before Mr. John Gooseflesh discovered the art of printing in the 15th century, we should have had to read our Testaments and our Gospels from the manuscript of monk or friar, from the pages of parchment or vellum or paper covered with the handwriting, sometimes very beautiful and ornamental, of the scribe that had undertaken the slow and laborious task of copying the Sacred Word."

(Unusual for me to see truth on this site)
danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:45 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

PART II: MORE from Henry Grey Graham:

"To begin with, the Bible did not drop down from Heaven ready-made, as some seem to imagine; it did not suddenly appear upon the earth, carried down from Almighty God by the hand of angel or seraph; but it was written by men like ourselves, who held in their hand pen (or reed) and ink and parchment, and laboriously traced every letter in the original languages of the East. They were divinely inspired certainly, as no others ever have been before or since; nevertheless, they were human beings, men chosen by God for the work, making use of the human instruments that lay to their hand at the time."

"In the second place we shall do well to remember that the Bible was not written all at once, or by one man, like most other books with which we are acquainted, but that 1500 years elapsed between the writing of Genesis (the first Book of the Old Testament) and the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John (the last Book of the New). It is made up of a collection of different books by different authors, forming, in short, a library instead of a single work, and hence called in Greek, “Biblia,” or “the Books.”
danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:38 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

MORE From Henry Grey Graham, an Honest Protestant:

"By a calm consideration of the facts of history and a mind open to conviction on genuine evidence, they will be driven by sheer force of honesty to the conclusion that the Catholic Church, so far from being the monster of iniquity that she is painted, has in very truth been the parent, the author and maker, under God, of the Bible; that she has guarded it and defended it all through the ages, and preserved it from error or destruction; that she has ever held it in highest veneration and esteem, and has grounded her doctrines upon it; that she alone has the right to call it her book; that she alone possesses the true Bible and the whole Bible, and that copies of the Scriptures existing outside of her pale are partly incorrect and partly defective, and that whatever in them is true, is true because derived from her who alone possesses the Book in its fullness and its truth. If they were Catholics, they would love God’s Holy Word more and more; they would understand it better; they would adore the Divine Providence that took such a wise and sure means of preserving and perpetuating it; and they would profoundly admire the Catholic Church for her ceaseless vigilance, untiring zeal and unswerving fidelity to the commission entrusted to her by Almighty God."
danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:25 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Believer: "But once again you continue to push the company line of the roman catholic church as opposed to the Word of God."

Why not? Jesus IS the company line..."Whoever hears you hears Me." We wrote and approved the Word of God (the 27 books of the NT); you will never learn any Christian history as long as you believe there is no truth outside the Bible, e.g.. like the Church Councils which approved the Bible, Nicea, et al.

Sola Scriptura: "...“in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” —2 Peter 3:16

THE WORDS OF AN HONEST PROTESTANT:
"Amid the general jubilation over the three hundredth anniversary of the appearance of King James’s version of the Bible, I think it would be a pity if we did not make mention of that great Church to which, under God, we owe our possession of the sacred Scriptures—I mean of course, the Roman Catholic Church."... "We shall only be awarding a just meed of praise and gratitude if we frankly and thankfully recognize that it is to a council (or councils) of the R.C. Church that we owe the collection of the separate books into our present Canon of the New Testament, and that to the loving care and devoted labor of the monks and scholars of that Church all through the ages we are indebted, not only for the multiplication and distribution of the sacred volume among the faithful when as yet no printing press existed, but even for the preservation of the Book from corruption and destruction. It is, then, undoubtedly true to say that, in the present order of Providence, it is owing to the Roman Catholic Church that we have a Bible at all. And no one will be a bit the worse Christian and Bible-lover if he remembers, this notable year, that it is to the Mother Church of Christendom he must look if he would behold the real preserver, defender, and transmitter of the “Word that endureth for ever.”
- HENRY GREY GRAHAM
absojc »

Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:10 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Danpat1 2000:

What of the thief on the cross?
believer »

Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

dan, how nice of you to take I Peter 3:21 out of context since Peter was not necessarily speaking of water baptism, since we are baptized into Christ the moment we repent of our sin and turn to God by putting our complete faith/trust in the person and finished work of Christ alone and at best he is saying that water baptism symbolizes our sins being washed away by the Resurrection of Christ. But once again you continue to push the company line of the roman catholic church as opposed to the Word of God.
believer »

Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:05 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

dan, the Bible clearly teaches that water baptism follows one being saved and that is why God instructed Paul to go to Annanias so he could be baptized as a result of being saved and not only so he could water baptize Paul but so he could disciple Paul as well and once again you have provided absolutely no valid scripture that teaches water baptism alone can save anyone let alone an infant.
danpat1_2000 »

Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:38 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

BAPTISM IV

After Saul accepted Jesus on the road to Damascus, he still had to be baptized to be saved.

If we were to follow your logic he could have been saved just by accepting Jesus, but God knows better and sent him on for his Baptism by Annanias.

Look at 1 Peter 3:21 and strip away all the adjectives in the sentence and you are left with all that is needed for a complete thought "baptism - saves."
danpat1_2000 »

Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:16 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

BAPTISM (continued)
"Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (ibid., 12).
PART III
"We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid., 16).

THIS IS WHY YOU SEEK NOT THE TRUTH BY READING THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS OR THE READINGS THAT WERE READ AT CHURCH-YOU KNOW IT PROVES YOU WRONG OR WHAT JESUS CALLS "HARDNESS OF HEART"
danpat1_2000 »

Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:14 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

PART II BAPTISM

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.

Early Church Fathers: (A.D. 80) Vs Protestant (2000)
{WHO SPEAKS THE TRUTH - ONE FROM THE APOSTOLIC TIMES OR THOSE 2000 YEARS LATER, JOHNNY COME LATELYS - WHO TWIST SCRIPTURE UNTO THEIR OWN DESIGN}

Hermas
"I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).
danpat1_2000 »

Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:39 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

"You just keep pushing the company line,"

Of course, I will always push the company line of Jesus who said to the first Bishop of Rome, St Peter, and his Apostles, "Whoever hears you, hears Me, and whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whosoever you loose upon earth will be loosed in heaven..." (no stronger authority that the Big Boss giving it to His troops.
believer »

Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:02 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

dan, I meant to say any biblical requirement for the water baptism of infants that you have not cited.
Prophet »

Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:41 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Danpart

Jesus also said that unless you give away all your possessions and give it to the poor you won't go to heaven. Why aren't the catholics going to heaven?

Jesus also said that he is the vine and we are the branches. Why don't the catholics have leaves?
believer »

Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:44 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

dan, as I told online about your posts, much ado about nothing. You just keep pushing the company line, in this case the company being the roman catholic church and yet have provided no valid biblical support for saying water baptism alone saves anyone too include infants or any biblical requirement for the baptizing of individuals, so at best the only thing you've proven is that child dedication is indeed a biblical practice since that is all that happens when a baby is water baptized since the Bible clearly teaches that water baptism alone can save no one and in fact water baptism is to follow one making a profession of faith in Jesus Christ by repenting of their sin and turning to God by putting their complete faith/trust in the person of Christ alone.
danpat1_2000 »

Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:03 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

More on Baptism: (Part I)

Always "form and matter" - the requirements of a Sacrament - an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace."

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

Always "form and matter"

This affirms my earlier post that the Protestant belief of "infants" not being baptized would exclude the poor babies from the kingdom of God (if they died before the age of reason--and as today many do) So who among us except a few on this site would have us love so "heartless a God." No sir, God is a universe of mercy.

Always "form and matter"

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus' teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

Always "form and matter"

John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus' baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

Always "form and matter"

Acts 8:36 â
danpat1_2000 »

Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:02 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Part II (More on Baptism)

Acts 22:16 â
danpat1_2000 »

Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:36 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

ID4234 "Water baptism of infants? What decision did the infant make? Based on what knowledge the infant has of the Bible?"

Now this is a person who has no knowledge of Apostolic Christian history (what the early Church believed) He needs to research the history of Godparents (found not only in the One True Holy and Apostolic Church of Christ but in many Protestant and other denominational faiths:

"The origin of godparents dates back to the early beginnings of the Christian Church. A sponsor was required for any person desirous of receiving the sacraments of baptism, holy Eucharist and confirmation. The role of the sponsor was to vouch for the person's character and to aid them as they prepared to take the sacraments."

This is still true today after 2000 years.
danpat1_2000 »

Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:24 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

"In 252AD the Council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants must wait until the eight day after birth to be baptized, as was the case with circumcision.

"Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or otehr relatives speak for them." St. Hippolytus 215ad

"To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to 'be saved.' To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever." -- Martin Luther (Quoted from The Large Catechism)

Calvin declares that "infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God"

John Knox said,"We baptize the infants so they may be counted among the faithful" "Without Baptism you are not a member of the body of Christ"

Zwingli's defense of infant baptism was based on inferences from statements of the early Church Fathers that it was practiced in the early church and that it took the place of circumcision as Paul alludes to in scripture."

This affirms what I posted prior in stating that Believer and OnLine cannot go to the early Church beliefs (of the Patristic Fathers; the Didache, the Shepard, etc.,) because it "exposes" their false beliefs that they wandered into after 1517; in fact they wandered so far off track that the so called reformers are closer to Christ's Church (built on St Peter)--the Catholic Church, than they are. Error begets error, and Luther's prime "error" of Sola Scriptura contributes a large part to this "straying from the original Gospel."
This is also why Believer who admitted earlier that he never even read the Didache (probably not any of the others either - Shepard, et al, since it is "safer" to stay in the dark than seek the truth.
danpat1_2000 »

Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:12 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

Believer: "Plus, we have no record of who was in those households so it would be pure speculation for either side of this discussion to use those verses to support their view."

Again, nonsense. You don't need records unless you believe Judas was making money on the side selling condoms. Your logic that in all of these households - they had no children is a reach "beyond all logic" but you say it because it fits your predetermined beliefs.

It would also say that "Christians" of that time are violating fundmentals of Christianity "Genesis 9:7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number ... " God

Of course you can "stretch (Sola'ing)" it further by stating just these particular families in the Bible were not having children. i.e., just the ones referencing "Baptism." My, what a coincidence.
danpat1_2000 »

Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:02 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

"God's Word says that we are not saved by works of righteousness."

St Paul is correct; Believer is Sola Scriptura'ing wrongly as usual. This is a Logic 101 error of which there are many on this site...accepting Paul's words does not mean he is rejecting "works." The Catholic Church asserts in its Catechism that "both faith and works are necessary since "faith without works is dead."

The Divine command is set forth in the most stringent terms by Christ, and the failure to comply with it is visited with the supreme penalty of "eternal damnation" (Matthew 25:41): "Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, in everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in; naked, and you covered me not; sick and in prison, and you did not visit me", etc.

The seven practices of charity toward our neighbor, based on Christâ
danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:47 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

"Water baptism of infants? What decision did the infant make? Based on what knowledge the infant has of the Bible?"

For Jesus' Sacraments to be valid all that is necessary is for it to have "form" (the words), and "matter" (the water) Baptism washes away Original sin. And I gave several Scriptural references for infant Baptism in a prior post.
danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:43 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

"The same Origen who excluded the apocrypha from inspired books of the Bible"

Or the same Luther who excluded the Maccabees (found in the original Septuagent written thousands of years before the King James version of the Bible) from the Bible since it referenced "prayers for the dead." Thus, once again he forced a supposedly "innerrant Bible" because you take something out that does not affirm one's own predisposed beliefs, voila - it supposedly remains "innerrant," Just like he doctored the Our Father in the King James version of his scripture which is another way to keep it "supposedly innerrant."
danpat1_2000 »

Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:36 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

"As I told msn, you can ignore the fact the Jesus blessed the little ones if you wish but at least I provided a biblical reference while Catholics on this board have provided NO BIBLICAL REFERENCE for infant baptisms; that speaks volumes...."

Not true since I posted several Biblical references; your "hardness of heart" is a Scriptural reference and shows up in many of your posts in your refusal to believe (see the group that walked away from Jesus when He gave us the Sacrament of the Eucharist, He having to say it six times...giving us His Body to eat and His Blood to drink). Also, since Baptism cleanses Original sin from the soul; your logic would condemn an infant to eternity without God since sin and God are contra-dictions and cannot coexist.
ID4234 »

Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:50 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Water baptism of infants? What decision did the infant make? Based on what knowledge the infant has of the Bible?
Online4Him »

Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:03 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

(Who is flagging everyone?????)

I don't know but it is childish to say the least....
Prophet »

Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:39 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I don't know. Probably someone who wants us to start blaming the catholics for flagging us.
msnchris70 »

Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:43 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Who is flagging everyone?????
Online4Him »

Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:07 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer & prophet,

Thanks for being there .... ;)
Online4Him »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:20 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Chas,

If you are going to gently rebuke me for my comment to msn; do not show partiality....gently rebuke your brother for his comment to me (Online, you got Alzheimer's)....
believer »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:11 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

chas, as of yet you've provided not one shred of biblical evidence that specifically calls for the water baptism of infants. As far as online's comedian remark I find it interesting you can poke fun at other posters but when someone says something like what online said you get upset about it.
Prophet »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:06 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

"Online's comment "you probably have a better shot as a comedian than you do as a interpreter of Scripture" WWJsay about your comment?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

True. He probably wouldn't be happy about it. But, he also wouldn't be happy with catholics perverting His Word either.
Online4Him »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:33 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Chas,

As I told msn, you can ignore the fact the Jesus blessed the little ones if you wish but at least I provided a biblical reference while Catholics on this board have provided NO BIBLICAL REFERENCE for infant baptisms; that speaks volumes....
Chas »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:38 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Online,
I realize that you came up with no valid scriptures to support your position, while I came up with plenty that supported my position. I also have historical record that backs me up, which you do not.

While I realize you tried to defend your position and failed, at least I didn't make fun of you.

Online's comment "you probably have a better shot as a comedian than you do as a interpreter of Scripture" WWJsay about your comment? This sinful nature of yours' to attack your neighbor after your so called gift of imputeth Righteousness doesn't seem very thankful to me?
Daniel Paul »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:15 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Online, you got Alzheimer's??? I will repost what Chas wrote about 20 lines earlier."

That's what we refer to as "short-timers". My dad's wife has Alzheimers. Trust me...it's a different thing for sure.
Online4Him »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:13 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Prophet said, "Let him who has ears to hear, hear the Word of God"

AMEN!!!
Online4Him »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:06 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer,

Amen; well said!
Prophet »

Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:00 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

"Origin:
"The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants"Commentary on Romans 5,9"

The same Origen who excluded the apocrypha from inspired books of the Bible.
Prophet »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:49 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Colossians 2 speaks of circumcision not done with hands. This is explained in Romans 2:29, and also in that same scripture in Colossians 2. The circumcision spoken of in Colossians (as well as Romans) isn't water baptism, but the "putting off of the body of sin". The problem is that the catholic church has always looked through the carnal eyes, but cannot see what the spirit is showing.

In the Old Covenant, circumcision was the cutting away of the flesh. In the New Covenant, it is the cutting away of the flesh (or the carnal nature), as Paul says "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5.

The circumcision spoken of by Paul, is the cutting away of the works of the flesh, not baptism. Let him who has ears to hear, hear the Word of God.
believer »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:10 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

online, and let's not forget what Christ called water baptism in Matthew 3:15, a work of righteousness and God's Word says that we are not saved by works of righteousness.
believer »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:07 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

chris, "only infants are circumcised" not true at all, just ask Abraham and Isaac. Plus only males are circumcised so does that mean only male infants are to be water baptized? Plus, we have no record of who was in those households so it would be pure speculation for either side of this discussion to use those verses to support their view.
Online4Him »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:28 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

(I don't exactly understand your question of, "Do you continue to sin after Holy Spirit's infusion/Righteousness?")

Chas was implying that justification is being made righteous by infusion.... I simply asked him if he has sinned since his infusion?
Online4Him »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:23 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Msn,

Lol...you probably have a better shot as a comedian than you do as a interpreter of Scripture. These passage say nothing of INFANTS or INFANT baptism...

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead (Colossians 2:11-12).

And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us (Acts 16:15).

And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway (Acts 16:33).

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other (1 Corinthians 1:16).
msnchris70 »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:28 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Online,

I don't exactly understand your question of, "Do you continue to sin after Holy Spirit's infusion/Righteousness?"

We all sin and we all fall short, can you tell me what you are getting at since we all sin.
msnchris70 »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:26 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Online, you got Alzheimer's??? I will repost what Chas wrote about 20 lines earlier.

Your scripture verses you used do support Jews dedicating, but not Christians.

Chas wrote:
Infant Baptism is implicit in Scripture and it is historically 100% shown. The Earliest Christians all baptized Babies into the NEW COVENANT. You can't be a member of the Body of Christ without Baptism.

I will list the passages of scripture that point to baptizing whole families that must include infants. I will also point to early references by Church fathers and I will also point to the Princes of the Reformation.

Your view of Baptism; online and Believer is not Christian.

Col 2:11-12 BAPTISM HAS REPLACED CIRCUMCISION(only infants are circumcised)

Acts 16:15 She was baptized with HER WHOLE FAMILY(including children)

Acts 16:33 He and his family were baptized at once(whole family including children)

1 Cor 1:16 I baptized the household of Stephanas

Origin:
"The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants"Commentary on Romans 5,9

In 252AD the Council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants must wait until the eight day after birth to be baptized, as was the case with circumcision.

"Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or otehr relatives speak for them." St. Hippolytus 215ad

"To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to 'be saved.' To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever." -- Martin Luther (Quoted from The Large Catechism)

Calvin declares that "infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God"

John Knox said,"We baptize the infants so they may be counted among the faithful" "Without Baptism you are not a member of the body of Christ"

Zwingli's defense of infant baptism was based on inferences from statements of the early Church Fathers that it was practiced in the early church and that it took the place of circumcision as Paul alludes to in scripture.
believer »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:12 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

chris, plus I would have no problem joining Messianic Jews in observing these celebrations and in fact we in the Southern Baptist Convention have a partnership with several Messianic Jewish organizations.
believer »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:10 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

chris, infant water baptisms and child dedications are the same thing since water baptism alone can save no one!
Daniel Paul »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:54 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"None of your passages of scriptures show CHRISTIANS dedicating babies. NONE. You showed JEWS being dedicated, which is a jewish process."

Is not Christianity the completion of the Jewish process?

Our church teaches very clearly that child dedication is the PARENTS and the CHURCH saying they will do their part to raise the child in the Lord. It doesn't bring salvation through Christ in and of itself.
Online4Him »

Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:32 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Msn,

Maybe you can address my question that Chas refuses to answer? DO YOU CONTINUE TO SIN AFTER BEING MADE RIGHTEOUS/INFUSED?

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

Comment on this story